Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[sgtbaker]

On the other hand, there is no reason to believe that a "suspect" might not react with violence if confronted by someone who could threaten his freedom, no matter how nonviolent his crimes have been up to then. A real police officer (and I think even a wanna be) would not make that assumption.

There is at least cause to suggest one way over the other, if he really believed Trayvon to be a part of the previous crime wave. You have zero evidence suggesting one direction and pattern of behavior in the other direction, well that's how most humans behave. That's why, no matter how hard we try to be open, there will be a little hint of stereotyping and prejudice in us. We look for patterns.

 

[This is The End]

This relies on knowing what Zimmerman was actually thinking. You can theorize that he was, based on what little you have been presented on him. However, concluding he is a whacker by lining up a definition of one, with little snippets about his life being shared by a media that's been less than reliable when dealing with facts, then using that likelyhood to support a second likelyhood that he probably felt like Dirty Harry is not a very stable argument.

But it's OK for you to claim that he was a normal person who would get "a greater sense of accountability and responsibility" by CC??

Too bad I was NOT claiming 100% as such. I was pointing out the evidence that produces an alternative to your claim.

Aside from the possibility that he is not, I think you are considerably underestimating the evidence we have that he was a Wannabee Whacker by the rational wiki definition.... and it's not just because he was in a neighborhood watch either.

 

[sgtbaker]

Yes I read the article. The lawyer should never have compared it to Shaken Baby Syndrome. It's not the reporters fault that the lawyer did that. I realize the lawyer was making an analogy, an awful one at that.

He didn't compare his client's injuries to shaken baby syndrome. He used shaken baby syndrome as an example of how damage to the brain can be deadly. His position requires him to at least outwardly believe his client's story. For the past month plus, we've been hearing "a gun vs a bag of skittles and a bottle of ice tea..." Unless Trayvon was using the bottle of ice tea and the skittles as weapons, that is a complete slant in reporting, used to dismiss any real threat his client may have been experiencing. His lawyer is pointing out that, according to his client's version, it's a gun vs hitting his head into the ground, which, incidently could actually kill a person.

 

[sgtbaker]

But it's OK for you to claim that he was a normal person who would get "a greater sense of accountability and responsibility" by CC??

Too bad I was NOT claiming 100% as such. I was pointing out the evidence that produces an alternative to your claim.

Aside from the possibility that he is not, I think you are considerably underestimating the evidence we have that he was a Wannabee Whacker by the rational wiki definition.... and it's not just because he was in a neighborhood watch either.

I did not claim anything. I merely countered the claim with an alternate possibility. Please stop creating the straw man that I assume anything about Zimmerman.

 

[This is The End]

He didn't compare his client's injuries to shaken baby syndrome. He used shaken baby syndrome as an example of how damage to the brain can be deadly. His position requires him to at least outwardly believe his client's story. For the past month plus, we've been hearing "a gun vs a bag of skittles and a bottle of ice tea..." Unless Trayvon was using the bottle of ice tea and the skittles as weapons, that is a complete slant in reporting, used to dismiss any real threat his client may have been experiencing. His lawyer is pointing out that, according to his client's version, it's a gun vs hitting his head into the ground, which, incidently could actually kill a person.

Oh for Pete's sake!! OK, he shouldn't have "brought up" Shaken Baby Syndrome. Worst. Analogy. Ever. No one could possibly have thought he was "comparing" SBS to his client by "bringing it up". My mistake.

Perhaps I should have never linked to the article at all? Perhaps it is my fault first, then the reporters, then whoever else, then maybe the lawyer for bringing up SBS?

I did not claim anything. I merely countered the claim with an alternate possibility. Please stop creating the straw man that I assume anything about Zimmerman.

...and I countered your claim with a likely possibility based on the evidence we have.

I'm not convinced your anecdotal evidence for how a normal person reacts to getting CC is how Z reacted.

 

[Cylinder]

Perhaps I should have never linked to the article at all? Perhaps it is my fault first, then the reporters, then whoever else, then maybe the lawyer for bringing up SDS?

Or maybe the media outlet used a misleading headline to fit neatly into their story template. Do you beleive, by the text of the article, that Zimmerman's attorney is invoking SBS in Zimmerman's defense?

Why should his attorney not brought up SBS as an example?

I guess Zimmerman Attorney Invokes Skiing Accident in Defense just wasn't as compelling a headline - or was it skewing the quote in a fairly transparent attempt to ridicule?

 

[This is The End]

Or maybe the media outlet used a misleading headline to fit neatly into their story template. Do you beleive, by the text of the article, that Zimmerman's attorney is invoking SBS in Zimmerman's defense?

Why should his attorney not brought up SBS as an example?

I guess Zimmerman Attorney Invokes Skiing Accident in Defense just wasn't as compelling a headline - or was it an attempt to skew the quote in a fairly transparent attempt to ridicule?

You seriously think that me, the reporter, or anyone claimed that Z's new attorney was invoking SBS in Z's defence?? That doesn't even make sense.

Skiing accidents happen to adults, SBS happens to babies. Does this really need to be spelled out?

 

[sgtbaker]

Oh for Pete's sake!! OK, he shouldn't have "brought up" Shaken Baby Syndrome. Worst. Analogy. Ever. No one could possibly have thought he was "comparing" SDS to his client by "bringing it up". My mistake.

Perhaps I should have never linked to the article at all? Perhaps it is my fault first, then the reporters, then whoever else, then maybe the lawyer for bringing up SDS?

Seriously? I didn't blame you for anything. You put out something and I challenged it, that's how forums work. His lawyer put out an explanation of his clients alleged right to be afraid, supported it with reasons why potential head injuries are nothing to be scoffed at, and then the Daily News put a spin on what he said by giving it a misleading headline.

...and I countered your claim with a likely possibility based on the evidence we have.

You've challenged the claim but your likelys are all based on being correct on what Zimmerman thought of himself, which is based on a few snippets out of 28 years of someone's life. In short, yours could be true but you've failed to present anything that says it's more likely true.

I'm not convinced your anecdotal evidence for how a normal person reacts to getting CC is how Z reacted.

You don't have to be.

 

[crimresearch]

OK they are the exact same age, 25. They are identical twins. They are the exact same strength. The recent actions and statements indicating intentions are: They were inside the bar and a girl likes both of them so they get into a fight over her.



So, in that case would it be at all possible that it is a justified, self defense, case in Florida or in another state if you so desire.

I've explained the proprotionate requirement in use of force. I've repeated that the US Constitution applies to *every* state. The standards for use of deadly force in self defense have been spelled out, with citations. Several other people have done the same.

Every single thing being exactly the same, guns against fists isn't proportionate.

Note that this is not what is being alleged in this case. The claim being made is that the fighter on top went for a gun, and the one losing the fistfight got to it first.

Which is exactly what you would expect someone lying to avoid being arrested would say.
It is also what you would expect a person telling the truth to say.

 

[Cylinder]

You seriously think that me, the reporter, or anyone claimed that Z's new attorney was invoking SBS in Z's defence?? That doesn't even make sense.

Trayvon Martin case: George Zimmerman’s lawyer invokes ‘Shaken Baby Syndrome’ as defense

 

[sgtbaker]

You seriously think that me, the reporter, or anyone claimed that Z's new attorney was invoking SBS in Z's defence?? That doesn't even make sense.

Skiing accidents happen to adults, SDS happens to babies. Does this really need to be spelled out?

Not you, the reporter. That was the title of the headline. That's what I opened the reponse to you with.

Trayvon Martin case: George Zimmerman’s lawyer invokes ‘Shaken Baby Syndrome’ as defense

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...drome-defense-article-1.1057679#ixzz1rNmhoMmV

To which you responded:

I don't think Z's new lawyer has any idea what ‘Shaken Baby Syndrome’ is:

I assume the new lawyer is saying that Z suffered concussion effects. I doubt that considering how he looked 30 minutes later in the police vid. But I am not a doctor.

Your assumption was wrong. His lawyer made no such claim, which is why I asked you if you actually read the article.

 

[Chris L]

There is at least cause to suggest one way over the other, if he really believed Trayvon to be a part of the previous crime wave.

Do you think a police officer would make that assumption? I know if I am stopped for speeding (a nonviolent crime), the officer who stops me will not assume I am a benign citizen. Even though he has no reason to believe I am violent, for safety sake, he must assume I just might be

An armed and self appointed "neighborhood watchman" would (by nature of his "hobby") have to operate under a similar set of assumptions. No matter how nonviolent the criminal, if it's a choice between hitting some random guy following him and going to jail, I'm guessing hitting random guy would be very tempting. One of the advantages of having a uniformed police officer approach such people is that the "criminal" can make a more informed choice as to how good or bad an idea that is.

 

[This is The End]

<snip>

I was asking for someone with knowledge of Florida Law to tell me if my hypothetical is a valid self defense claim. That's all there is to it. If you need even more info added to the hypothetical, please ask. I'm not the expert, I have no idea how much info I need it to have.

 

[sgtbaker]

Do you think a police officer would make that assumption? I know if I am stopped for speeding (a nonviolent crime), the officer who stops me will not assume I am a benign citizen. Even though he has no reason to believe I am violent, for safety sake, he must assume I just might be

An armed and self appointed "neighborhood watchman" would (by nature of his "hobby") have to operate under a similar set of assumptions. No matter how nonviolent the criminal, if it's a choice between hitting some random guy following him and going to jail, I'm guessing hitting random guy would be very tempting. One of the advantages of having a uniformed police officer approach such people is that the "criminal" can make a more informed choice as to how good or bad an idea that is.

None of this is relevant because he is not a trained police officer. The rest assumes what Zimmerman or an nonviolent criminal would do based on what you think they would do. All I am saying is your suggestion that it's clear Zimmerman should have expected a confrontation is not so clear. I gave you a potential reason why it might not have been so clear. That's all.

 

[This is The End]

Your assumption was wrong. His lawyer made no such claim, which is why I asked you if you actually read the article.

I was trying to rationalize why the lawyer would bring up SBS. SBS refers to mere shaking, not contact. Shaking is likely to kill a baby. While with an adult it would likely only give concussion effects. My analogy was me trying to make sense of the lawyer bringing up SBS. Again, I'm sorry if I worded it quite badly.

<snip>

I apologize for the SBS situation and the "how a person may act when they have CC" situation.

 

[sgtbaker]

I was trying to rationalize why the lawyer would bring up SDS. SDS refers to mere shaking, not contact. Shaking is likely to kill a baby. While with an adult it would likely only give concussion effects. My analogy was me trying to make sense of the lawyer bringing up SDS. Again, I'm sorry if I worded it quite badly.



I apologize for the SDS situation and the "how a person may act when they have CC" situation.

Fair enough.

 

[Cylinder]

I was asking for someone with knowledge of Florida Law to tell me if my hypothetical is a valid self defense claim.

There could be a valid claim made in your scenario. The claim is dependant on what boils down to a resonable fear of death, great bodily harm or forcible felony and clean hands - sprikled with caveats.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

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.

 

[This is The End]

Fair enough.

More proof I'm not an expert. I kept using the acronym SDS when I know I meant SBS, Shaken Baby Syndrome. I was thinking SIDS = Suden Infent Death Syndrome, a completely unrelated, but just as serious, problem.

 

[John Albert]

The simple, uncontested fact that seems to be ignored is that an armed man pursued, confronted, shot, and killed an innocent, unarmed man. Zimmerman is known to have initiated the confrontation. He clearly said on the recorded phone call that he was pursuing Martin. It's one thing to defend oneself if one were simply attacked on the street or on one's own property, but in what kind of messed-up legal system would it be OK to follow somebody down a street at night for no demonstrable reason, chase him down, confront and shoot him when he fights back?

As for his story that he broke off the chase and Treyvon Martin attacked him afterward, that's a case that Zimmerman needs to prove because the known facts certainly don't support that version of events. He may be innocent until proven guilty, but when he claims "self defense" the burden of proof shifts onto him to support that claim.

The facts as we know them would clearly support a case of improper defense resulting in death: in other words voluntary manslaughter, or at least involuntary manslaughter if he could somehow prove that there was a struggle for the weapon.

 

[Chris L]

None of this is relevant because he is not a trained police officer. The rest assumes what Zimmerman or an nonviolent criminal would do based on what you think they would do. All I am saying is your suggestion that it's clear Zimmerman should have expected a confrontation is not so clear. I gave you a potential reason why it might not have been so clear. That's all.

I'm not a trained police officer either, but you don't have to be one to understand that if you are following someone you think is in the process of committing a crime, that person may not like you following them. That person may in fact think of your pursuit as a threat to their freedom. Basic common sense dictates you not (unless it's your job) do that. Seeing as Zimmerman had a real interest in doing police type work, it is not a stretch to think he'd be aware of such things.