Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I agree BTW that only responsible professionals should follow people with a weapon. The professional has the experience to know how to intimidate people and abuse their privacy and civil rights. The professional is also much better equipped to deal with the situation when they kill someone without justification. A true professional would have know to claim that he thought TM's cell phone was a weapon that he was pointing at him.

Before someone points out my flawed logic, this is pure sarcasm not meant to be take seriously, nor meant to offend those here who might be in law enforcement. Now here's how a true professional behaves:

68-year-old Kenneth Chamberlain, a black Marine vet shot dead at his home by police in White Plains, New York, last November after he accidentally set off his wearable medical alert device. Documented in audio recordings, the White Plains police reportedly used a racial slur, burst through Chamberlain’s door, tasered him, then shot him dead.

http://boingboing.net/2012/04/06/po..._campaign=Feed:+boingboing/iBag+(Boing+Boing)

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

OR. he's bright enough to now[/n] realize a kid who was screaming for help was probably trying to get away rather than hurt him and shooting said kid looks bad. And came up with this to explain the screams. But not bright enough to see any flaws in his cunning plan.

Well again, he didn't come up with it now/recently, it appears to have been his story from the first moment and is backed up by an eyewitness. And while you are using the word "cunning" sarcastically, if he lied about it and got away with this particular lie, I'd say it is in fact incredibly cunning, fast thinking, and lucky.

And I don't give him credit for being that cunning and fast thinking. Therefore I think it likely he's telling the truth on this issue. If he's lying, I think it's far more likely he's lying about the encounter itself and being unexpectedly attacked first. That is what I think it's more likely he'd lie and have reason to lie about that.

My best guess.

 

[Mumbles]

So for those who don't believe George Zimmerman, what exactly do you think happened with him and Trayvon Martin? If he's lying, then he must have followed Trayvon and just shot him unprovoked? Was he having a bad night or something? If this is about racial profiling, I'm sure was any number of black people George could have murdered. Something doesn't add up.

What I think happened is simple. Zimmerman profiled Martin based on his own biases, decided he was "suspicious" because he was black and unfamiliar, and chased after him. Martin was alarmed by this, and swung on Zimmerman. Or, Zimmerman reached out to grab Martin. Either way, they fought. Zimmerman lost the fight, panicked, and, when he could, pulled his gun and shot Martin.

As evidence, we have Zimmerman's 911 call, the testimony of the girl Martin was on the phone with, the location of the fight, the various 911 calls, and of course, the body of Trayvon Martin.

You know how people complain of bias in the media? This whole storyis such a great example of that. They never fail to mention that Trayvon had a "pack of skittles and an iced tea" (to make him seem like a pure victim) and they intentionally leave out Zimmermans account of what happened. The only other option here is that Zimmerman simply gave in to some deep desire to kill black people and did so. I for one will not be joining the angry mob without looking at this critically. The media make that impossible when they only print one side of a story or edit evidence, as NBC did:

I will say this again, Zimmerman has not spoken to the press, and thus has made no public statements. The Sanford police have made statements, but they have made false statements about the evidence that they had. Zimmerman's father has also made false statements to the public. Because these sources are not trustworthy, I will not put their words into George Zimmerman's mouth. And frankly, his alleged friends and lawyers are dimwits. But the entire point, here, is that Zimmerman should be arrested and face a trial, not that he should be executed. At this point, that's really the only way to get the full evidence released, and for him to tell his own side of the story.

And honestly, he should have been arrested a long time ago, but the bumbling of the Sanford PD basically asked for this to become a national issue.

 

[This is The End]

Could someone help me with Florida law in a hypothetical.

Two people are in Florida, they leave a bar and get into a fight. All witnesses agree the fight was mutually started and that the two people were still sober.

One of the two people, now Person A, gets the clear upper hand and is beating Person B senseless. Then Person B pulls out a gun and kills Person A.

Under Florida law would person B have any valid argument for that shooting being justified.

Florida has nothing to do with it, anywhere in the country, the same overarching legal axiom applies to situations like the one you describe.

Eppur si dipende

The correct legal answer is 'Absolutely not', except when the correct legal answer is 'Yes'.

If you fill in the blanks with the right variables either answer will be correct

Could you please tell me what "blanks" I left in my hypothetical so that I may fill them in and then we may get an answer? What more would you need to know that I left out?

 

[Moss]

Before someone points out my flawed logic, this is pure sarcasm not meant to be take seriously, nor meant to offend those here who might be in law enforcement.

Your sacrasm is intended to convey what exactly?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

FYI I omitted the rest of your post which I thought was spot on.

But the entire point, here, is that Zimmerman should be arrested and face a trial, not that he should be executed. At this point, that's really the only way to get the full evidence released, and for him to tell his own side of the story.

It seems to me that someone should be arrested not to get the truth out, but because the truth (evidence) suggests they are guilty and should go to jail. Which as I've said, I don't know whether that should happen or not based on the limited info we have.

Nevertheless, I was thinking about what you said, and I think in some bizarre way if GZ were to go through a trial and be found innocent, it might be the only way for him to ever establish any meaningful closure for himself*. That is, if they decide not to prosecute, the guy will never be able to comment or tell his side of the story, as he could always still be charged, and I suspect it will also hang over his head more. It almost seems like if he gets charged it's better for him long term even IF he's innocent.

Of course the TM family will never get closure, and the only way they'll feel some degree of closure is if get charged and convicted of some type of murder.

Which brings up another issue, which is that if he gets charged the possible outcome of whether he sees jail time could depend greatly on whether the prosecutor gives the jury an option of manslaughter. That gives the jury a lesser charge to go with if they can't agree on murder.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Your sacrasm is intended to convey what exactly?

Being silly, and pointing out that even "professionals" often overreact and abuse people. I think that an inordinate amount of abuse of people and their rights takes place at the hands of police officers, even if we take into account that every profession is going to have bad apples.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

Being silly, and pointing out that even "professionals" often overreact and abuse people. I think that an inordinate amount of abuse of people and their rights takes place at the hands of police officers, even if we take into account that every profession is going to have bad apples.

Um, isn't this just a natural result of the level of power police officers have over people?

There's a million and one ways a bad cop can mess with someone, a meter maid or the guy who works at Arby's can only abuse your rights in very narrow ways. So maybe there is just the same amount, or even less, of bad cops as bad Arby employees, but their inordinate amount level of power amplifies the appearance of departmental abuses?

 

[RandFan]

Um, isn't this just a natural result of the level of power police officers have over people?

There's a million and one ways a bad cop can mess with someone, a meter maid or the guy who works at Arby's can only abuse your rights in very narrow ways. So maybe there is just the same amount, or even less, of bad cops as bad Arby employees, but their inordinate amount level of power amplifies the appearance of departmental abuses?

Yep, if power corrupts then the power of a police officer is far more pernicious than the local librarian. I'm not sure why some people don't get this.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I always figured it had more to do with the type of personality that is going to be attracted to the profession in the first place but it is no doubt related to your points (Jekyll) too. As for whether it's inordinate, I don't know of any way to assess that from an objective standpoint, but my opinion is it's rampant. When I watch the behavior of the police on a TV show like Cops when they know they are being televised, and see how often they choose to escalate a situation to violence and throw someone on the ground when they could just as easily diffuse the situation, it tells me I can only imagine what happens when the cameras aren't running.

I also have some very good friends that I trust completely that grew up in bad neighborhoods and the widespread abuse they have described to me is shocking. Goes to that thing about how black people perceive the police versus white people.

I also figure that for every instance where they get caught on video beating people that there are 100 or more instances where there is no video.

 

[leftysergeant]

I always figured it had more to do with the type of personality that is going to be attracted to the profession in the first place but it is no doubt related to your points (Jekyll) too.

It would appear that some positions besides actual law enforcement work tend to attract power-trippers or people with delusions about their own self-worth.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, the only two Neighborhood Watch people we know of for that community are Z and Taaffe, neither of whom seem to know what it means to be a man, but who are fond of having power of some sort over others. Both have had run-ins with the law involving domestic violence. Typically, such a person tends to believe himself more right than is warranted in any confrontation with others.

There is, really, little difference between the mindset of a rapist and a wife-beater. It is about an excessive desire to be in control.

 

[Information Analyst]

I always figured it had more to do with the type of personality that is going to be attracted to the profession in the first place but it is no doubt related to your points (Jekyll) too. As for whether it's inordinate, I don't know of any way to assess that from an objective standpoint, but my opinion is it's rampant. When I watch the behavior of the police on a TV show like Cops when they know they are being televised, and see how often they choose to escalate a situation to violence and throw someone on the ground when they could just as easily diffuse the situation, it tells me I can only imagine what happens when the cameras aren't running.

Speaking from the UK angle, I think a lot of it can be institutional, and varies between forces. Three police forces operate in London: the City of London Police in the square mile of the historic city itself, British Transport Police on the Underground and railways, and the Metropolitan Police for the wider region of the capital. Based on both my personal interactions with all three, and observations of them dealing with other people, I think there is a real gulf of arrogance that separates the Met from the other two forces, with the officers of the latter being unfailingly polite and an responsive to the public in the correct manner. The only exception with the Met appear to be the armed Diplomatic Protection unit, which seems a hell of a lot less gung ho than the general armed units. Even on the occasion when I'd just staggered out of a nightclub at 6 am, less than sober, and got chatting to a DP officer at the petrol station next door (he'd just filled his car up), he was far more polite and tolerant than I deserved!

 

[crimresearch]

Could you please tell me what "blanks" I left in my hypothetical so that I may fill them in and then we may get an answer? What more would you need to know that I left out?

You left out age, size, strength, recent actions, statements indicating intentions... the Totality Of The Circumstances.

No court is going to render a decision on the facts as you presented them.

 

[leftysergeant]

Now somebody is putting up a web site to solicit donations to a legal defense fund for Z and his father, to meet both legal expenses and "living expenses."

Excuse me while I wander off to find a place to barf.

 

[Dancing David]

I think we're in agreement on most of the particulars here. And I know the chasm between common sense and what is acceptable in a court of law can be wide.

But for me, it simply comes down to Zimmerman's credibility. At this point, all we have is his word that he acted in self-defense. That opens up him and his story to scrutiny.

I don't know for sure how this would play out if it leads to a criminal proceeding, but I have to think at some point - absent solid evidence - the believability of what he claims will factor in. I don't know, I could be wrong.

His credibility will factor very heavily in the self defense claim. And the evidence that supports or contradicts it.

If for example the powder burns show that they were standing twenty feet apart when the shot was fired.

But there will be a lot of legal wrangling over

(alleged events)
-GZ following
-who initiated contact
-who initiated violence

then it will come down to laws, legal precedent and the jury instructions

 

[mikedenk]

Now somebody is putting up a web site to solicit donations to a legal defense fund for Z and his father, to meet both legal expenses and "living expenses."

Excuse me while I wander off to find a place to barf.

He has been made into a sympathetic character because of crap like this:

nbc-fires-producer-for-racist-edit-of-zimmerman-911-call/

 

[Kestrel]

He has been made into a sympathetic character because of crap like this:

nbc-fires-producer-for-racist-edit-of-zimmerman-911-call/

The theory seems to be that only a racist would mention a person's race or color when calling the police about a suspicious person. Therefore George Zimmerman mentioning the suspects race without being prompted is clear evidence of racism. In fact, most of us would mention the race of a suspect when calling the police. NBC shouldn't have edited it the way they did, but the outrage is completely out of proportion to the editorial mistake.

The real clue to Zimmerman's state of mind comes later in the call when he states "these ******** always get away" and gets out of his truck to chase the suspect on his own.

 

[Cylinder]

"these ******** always get away"

You keep posting that. What are you claiming the redacted word is?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You keep posting that. What are you claiming the redacted word is?

The word is *** holes. I didn't think there was any controversy about that.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

What I think happened is simple. Zimmerman profiled Martin based on his own biases, decided he was "suspicious" because he was black and unfamiliar, and chased after him. Martin was alarmed by this, and swung on Zimmerman.

Why, instead of going the final few hundred feet to the safety of home ?

The Sanford police have made statements, but they have made false statements about the evidence that they had. Zimmerman's father has also made false statements to the public.

And TMs parents have made false statements. And their attorney has made false statements. Obviously , we can trust no one about anything.