Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[CoulsdonUK]

Correct.

At this point, the rest of what we have is largely speculation.

Sorry I am trying to get my head around this. In Florida, you could shoot me and simply state I was wearing sandals, maybe I looked at incorrectly and you felt threatened on some level resulting in you shooting me and that would be okay?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Zimmerman did not claim he was following Martin and Martin turned around and "kicked his ass". He claimed he was returning to his truck and Martin jumped him from behind. How much "corroborative evidence" is there that it happened that way?

I'm pretty sure you saw my post earlier, questioning how else a 140 pound little boy could otherwise kick a giant fat man with a guns ass, unless it was assaulting him from behind?

Again, we have a story from GZ. Until we have more evidence (forensics, etc) I'll continue to use GZ leaked statements as a starting point, until I see reasonable grounds to disbelieve them. As new evidence comes out, I'll re-evaluate, as I have been.

I apologize if this is not thinking critically enough for you.

 

[AvalonXQ]

In Florida, you could shoot me and simply state I was wearing sandals, maybe I looked at incorrectly and you felt threatened on some level resulting in you shooting me and that would be okay?

No. In Florida I could say that you accosted me, beat me to the ground, then stood over me and kept beating on me; this could result in me shooting you and that would be okay.

 

[Kestrel]

Kestrel, sorry forgot to check the reple box

Thank you for your response.

So Trayvon Martin (TM) would not have necessarily known GZ was neighbourhood watch captain, he may have thought he was just being followed by some guy? UK news is reporting that TM was speaking to a friend just before the shooting, is this correct?

TM was on the phone with his girlfriend. She reported him saying that a "strange man" was following him. later she head Martin say "why are you following me?" and someone else respond "what are you doing here?" just before the call was cut off.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Floridian here. You're wrong..

Pretty much everything I've read on this case is somewhere between cartoonishly ignorant and flat-out wrong, with a preponderance of the former.

Okay, so please enlighten me “stand your ground” what does this a law mean?

 

[WildCat]

No dammit. Kestel asked a ******* question! FFS, why is someone always (according to you) stating something as fact, when they ask a question?

Seriously, answer that. Why can't someone ask a ******* question?

I'm just astonished at all the wild speculation and evidence-free assertions that passes for critical thinking in this thread.

We're at the point where people are drawing conclusions from a route no one even knows was taken, and some people even presume to know how a person's body will fall after they've been shot, and what position they'll die in.

It's unreal, I guess this is why I mostly stayed out of the Amanda Knox thread. I think I'll stay mostly out of this one until new information becomes known, it's just going around in circles at this point anyway.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

New article about the homicide dective that originally investigated things:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-ma...n-manslaughter/story?id=16011674#.T3III-xWqjI

As with all, take with several shakes of salt at this point.

I have MSNBC on in the background. Rev Al just now went into this 'breaking news' (according to Rev. Al) about the lead investigator.

I am very disgusted with the news media. Maybe I should be happy and pretend they are so behind because they are checking all their sources ?

 

[triforcharity]

Following someone to keep tabs on them seems to me to be different from "pursuing" them.

"Pursue" implies chase and catch. No sign that Zimmerman was chasing or intended to catch, Martin.

The word is being used deliberately.

Neighborhood watch is not vigilante justice. There's still no evidence that Zimmerman was doing anything but watching Martin until the confrontation, and no evidence that he intended to do anything but watch Martin.

The biggest problem I have, personally, si why Zimmerman was out of his vehicle to begin with. You're perfectly capable of "observing" someone from a distance, in a vehicle.

We know he was out of his vehicle and away from it a substantial distance, based on where the fight occurs.

Why was he so far away from his vehicle? To me, it tells me he was "following" Martin, and his intentions were to either (Speculation here WildCat, don't try to put words in my mouth. I am NOT stating a fact)

A-Follow him at a distance while on foot, until the police arrived.
B-Catch Martin to confront him as to his reason for being in the neighborhood.

Either way, it's stupid to be outside of his vehicle. Stupid. Observe and report. You are safest in your vehicle. There is no need to leave your vehicle at any time. That is what the police are for.

Not to mention that you could go a whole ton faster in a vehicle, than on foot.

 

[crimresearch]

Correct me if I have this wrong; a fellow American (in Florida) can shoot another if she or she feels their life is threatened then evoke “stand your ground” and the police just walk away? What is the role of the police in such circumstances?

A person in many countries can kill another person and say whatever they think will keep them out of trouble. Sometimes they even get away with it.

That aside, the basic premise of self defense in America is similar to English common law, where (as Dryden observed) the right to protect one's self is 'Nature's eldest law'.

Over the years the courts have established that you can use proportionate force to protect life and limb.

Guns have complicated the matter on several fronts... racial, political, and social. The media hasn't helped either.

Suffice it to say that politicians sought to score points by passing modifications that gave more leeway to taking care of 'bad guys' without bothering to ask for their guild card, or without running away.
The media slapped sensationalized labels on these statutes such as 'Make my Day', and 'Stand Your Ground'.

And that does create the prospect of a liar getting away with a murder through a contrived claim of self defense.

Before, the same murderer might have had to work harder to fabricate the claim that 'It was an accident', instead of 'It was self defense'.


Note that this current case isn't sufficiently developed to know what happened here, and the current claim by GZ that he was attacked from behind by surpriose means that there literally was no 'ground' to stand.. he was just fighting for his life (according to him).

 

[crimresearch]

Why?

1. I wasn't responding to *all* the posts about Jackson.

2. No, I am not claiming to be any other poster using multiple accounts.

3. If you hadn't incomprehensibly assumed (2), you would have no need to wonder whether multiple accounts are allowed.

4. I said nothing about Varwoche supporting some other odd claim he may have made. I was referring specifically to his clear implication to the effect that I am a broad-brush-boy, apparently because I lumped together people who had already lumped themselves together. I suppose. Who knows what goes on inside Varwoche's head, or why. And why is it any of your concern, in any case?

So. Go back and read my posts. There are only a couple of them. Then read the posts I responded to. Try to pay attention to specific context, and avoid going off on flights of fancy in which I am actually another poster talking about something else using multiple accounts. Do that, and then, possibly, you may begin to understand my very simple posts.

That's really impressive and all...

...had Varwoche been quoting *you* instead of someone else in his earlier post about Jackson... where the other poster used the broad brush on JREF as a whole.

As far as your understanding sarcasm fail, and refusal to look at reality, they tell me that very little can be done to help with that.

 

[triforcharity]

Hey wait a minute! I argued about citizen's arrests. I was told Florida has no such thing. So how can Zimmerman use that? (He could, actually.)

Well, here's the problem, and I will go slow so you understand.

Florida does not have a citizens arrest law, in that sense.

Florida's law is written to protect a person whom detains a person that they ACTUALLY WITNESSED committing a breach of peace. Zimmerman COULDN'T have used this protection because he NEVER witnessed Martin committing ANY crime. So, you're simply, wrong. Just sit there in your wrongness and be wrong.

In fact, I cited two different LEGAL rulings (By appeals court judges) that spell it out CLEARLY to you. Did you read them?

 

[leftysergeant]

No. In Florida I could say that you accosted me, beat me to the ground, then stood over me and kept beating on me; this could result in me shooting you and that would be okay.

Far-fetched. Z put Martin in fear for his life. Martin responded appropriately, as far as it went. When he saw that the fool chasing him had a gun, it would have been a good reason to kill him rather than back off.

Z was wrong and had no right to harm Martin in any way. It is natural that he defended himself, but not legal. He will have to face the penalty for killing an innocent man who had been no threat to him before he committed a crime against him.

 

[Checkmite]

I'm pretty sure you saw my post earlier, questioning how else a 140 pound little boy could otherwise kick a giant fat man with a guns ass, unless it was assaulting him from behind?

But just before this, you said

I'm not sure I understand why it's so hard to believe a 17 year teenager old would get tired of a short fat guy following him, and turn around and kick his ass ?
This doesn't seem far-fetched to me.

So which is it? It isn't far fetched to you that Zimmerman was following Martin, prompting Martin to "turn around and kick his ass", and then in the next post you can't imagine how any ass-kicking could take place unless Martin followed Zimmerman and took him from behind?

 

[triforcharity]

It was all news to me--I'd previously only read that he'd been interviewed by the narcotics officer. I also was unaware that the homicide investigator did not find GZ's story credible.

Here's the part that I do not find credible at all.

I've also discussed this before.

"Police brought Zimmerman into the station for questioning for a few hours on the night of the shooting, said Zimmerman's attorney, despite his request for medical attention first."

I find this HIGHLY suspect. He was treated at the scene. If he was hurt that bad, he shouldn't have signed the paperwork that the paramedics would have HAD him sign. It's called a "Patient refusal". It's basically saying that the FD suggested that he be treated at a local hospital, and he declined.

I'm sorry, I call BS. So, i'll take the rest of the article with a truck load of salt, just as you suggested.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

A person in many countries can kill another person and say whatever they think will keep them out of trouble. Sometimes they even get away with it.

That aside, the basic premise of self defense in America is similar to English common law, where (as Dryden observed) the right to protect one's self is 'Nature's eldest law'.

Over the years the courts have established that you can use proportionate force to protect life and limb.

Guns have complicated the matter on several fronts... racial, political, and social. The media hasn't helped either.

Suffice it to say that politicians sought to score points by passing modifications that gave more leeway to taking care of 'bad guys' without bothering to ask for their guild card, or without running away.
The media slapped sensationalized labels on these statutes such as 'Make my Day', and 'Stand Your Ground'.

And that does create the prospect of a liar getting away with a murder through a contrived claim of self defense.

Before, the same murderer might have had to work harder to fabricate the claim that 'It was an accident', instead of 'It was self defense'.


Note that this current case isn't sufficiently developed to know what happened here, and the current claim by GZ that he was attacked from behind by surpriose means that there literally was no 'ground' to stand.. he was just fighting for his life (according to him).

Thank you, I guess you’re right it’s just too early in the case and emotions are running high.

We have our fair share of mistakes over here (UK), resulting in suspects being shot but on the surface this case just seems incredible.

 

[leftysergeant]

Well, here's the problem, and I will go slow so you understand.

Florida does not have a citizens arrest law, in that sense.

Florida's law is written to protect a person whom detains a person that they ACTUALLY WITNESSED committing a breach of peace. Zimmerman COULDN'T have used this protection because he NEVER witnessed Martin committing ANY crime.

This, I believe puts him in violation of Florida Statutes Title XLVI Chapter 787.02(1)(a).

Flase imprisonment, pure and simple. He interfered with Martin's movements by plalcing him in fear for his life.

Prosecutor dropped the ball by not charging him with that right out of the box.

 

[crimresearch]

Okay, so please enlighten me “stand your ground” what does this a law mean?

Here are the Florida statutes:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

776.012 says 'does not have a duty to retreat'.

That is what the media has dubbed 'Stand your Ground'.
In some jurisdictions, there were old laws requiring the victim of a crime to run away until their 'back was against the wall' before using force in self defense. Those have been mostly replaced by the newer standard that you don't *have to* run away under specific conditions.

And these are still beside the main point that no one is required by law to simply lay there and enjoy being killed without try to do something... or the obvious counterpoint that some people will try any trick they can think of to get away with a crime.

 

[triforcharity]

This question may have already been asked. However, do neighbourhood watch captains wear uniforms?

Nope.

What is the scope of their duties?

Observe and report. They NEVER advise to confront, follow, chase, or in any way get involved. Observe and report only.

Has anyone else been shot whilst under suspicion, in the same area?

Not that I am aware of.

 

[triforcharity]

Because they were fighting, grappling each other on the ground? Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Assumes facts not in evidence. It is a claim by the defendant, with no physical evidence to back it up.

(See, it's not so nice when someone does that bull **** to you, is it? )

 

[triforcharity]

Correct me if I have this wrong; a fellow American (in Florida) can shoot another if she or she feels their life is threatened then evoke “stand your ground” and the police just walk away? What is the role of the police in such circumstances?

No. There would be an in depth investigation, and it must match the evidence, both physical and eyewitness.

If you want to know more about the SYG laws in Florida, PM me.

Cheers!