Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Why would TM put his hand over GZ's mouth?

Not to suffocate.

Because GZ was screaming for help, and TM had to try to shut him up.

Hmmm.......

 

[LTC8K6]

If TM was at the 7-11 between 6:00 and 6:30, as we've heard, he should have been home long before GZ came home. The two should never have been anywhere near each other if TM walked home from the 7-11 between 6:00 and 6:30.

Plus, there are security cameras at the housing area.
We have heard little about what they may show.

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/04/09/security_gate_t142011319_620x350.jpg


http://www.cfnews13.com/content/dam...od-retreat-at-twin-lakes-subdivision-0410.jpg

Edited by LashL: 

Changed hotlinks to regular links. Please see Rule 5.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

If the judge releases the evidence, anyone know if that includes all of the video tapes of police interviews, as well as video tape of GZ doing the walk-through at the crime scene with police? Will all that become part of the public domain??

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

If TM was at the 7-11 between 6:00 and 6:30, as we've heard, he should have been home long before GZ came home. The two should never have been anywhere near each other if TM walked home from the 7-11 between 6:00 and 6:30.

Ya, if he had gone straight home he'd have been home much earlier, but he obviously didn't, so why is that relevant?

 

[This is The End]

As for the second part, if there was some evidence that M should have logically thought his life was threatened, then yes M does have the right to defend himself by any means necessary, or "beat the crap out of Z" as you put it. And it just so happens that in Florida he doesn't have to try and retreat first if his life is threatened.

Legal question time! This one is probably a "no brainer" but it has to be asked (though, I think it was covered much earlier in the thread). And please try to answer it on legal grounds, and not read into it how you feel about the M/Z case.

#1: Let us say that we have solid evidence that Person A reasonably had his life in threat by Person B. Also, they are in a "no attempt to retreat is required" state.

(#1 is important, please re-read it if you don't understand it, or ask me to clarify it.)

#2: Person A then, legally, starts to ram Person B's head into something to subdue him.

#3: Person B now feels that his life is threatened and pulls a gun and shoots and kills person A. Even though Person B was the one to first give Person A reasonable cause to believe that his (Person A's) life was threatened.

If all of the above is known, with evidence to back it all up, would Person B be able to make a self defense claim?

I have a feeling his (Person Bs) self defense claim would not be allowed because, even though he (Person B) had reasonable cause to believe that his life was in danger, he (Person B) first gave Person A reason to fear for his (Person As) life.

Again, this is probably obvious; please don't yell at me for asking an obvious question. I just want someone to let me know that this is what the law says.

 

[This is The End]

Ya, if he had gone straight home he'd have been home much earlier, but he obviously didn't, so why is that relevant?

I agree it is not relevant. M has every right to take as long as he wants in getting home.

 

[Cylinder]

If the judge releases the evidence, anyone know if that includes all of the video tapes of police interviews, as well as video tape of GZ doing the walk-through at the crime scene with police? Will all that become part of the public domain??

The Sunshine Rules state that all discovery evidence is public (subjet to a 15 day waiting period) unless a motion to seal the evidence is granted. If either side has to provide to the other with the information, then the media gets it as well. Florida has arguably the most open FOI law in the nation.

That being said, Judge Lester seems content with letting the fanfare die down before any of the evidence is released. Remember that he has not seen this evidence either. Other than evidentiary hearings, he's in the same boat as us as far as evidence goes.

What troubles me, as I've stated before, was that the state has been very willing to spoon-feed the media up to the point that the evidence is supposed to be presented - now they are complicit with the defense strategy to have the media left out. Why is that?

 

[This is The End]

<snip>

Judge Lester seems content with letting the fanfare die down....

<snip>

So in about 20 years then?

 

[Cylinder]

#1: Let us say that we have solid evidence that Person A reasonably had his life in threat by Person B. Also, they are in a "no attempt to retreat is required" state.

#2: Person A then, legally, starts to ram Person B's head into something to subdue him.

#3: Person B now feels that his life is threatened and pulls a gun and shoots and kills person A. Even though Person B was the one to first give Person A reasonable cause to believe that his (Person A's) life was threatened.

If all of the above is known, with evidence to back it all up, would Person B be able to make a self defense claim?

Yes - provided the person making the claim has clean hands (not breaking the law). The claim is always judged from the perspective of the person making the claim.

ETA:There is alot of room for nitpicks here. Who started the fight, etc...

 

[LTC8K6]

Ya, if he had gone straight home he'd have been home much earlier, but he obviously didn't, so why is that relevant?

What he was doing might be relevant, if the defense can find out. Or it might not.

However, what if TM was back at the housing area well before GZ notices him? It might lend credence to GZ finding him suspicious. There may even be other residents who saw TM wandering the complex before GZ did.

TM might be on a security camera at the complex well before GZ arrives.

It could call into question the story that TM left in the middle of that basketball game for a quick trip to the 7-11.

Assuming the reports of his arrival and departure at the 7-11 are accurate, of course.

 

[This is The End]

Yes - provided the person making the claim has clean hands (not breaking the law). The claim is always judged from the perspective of the person making the claim.

You mean No then right? My hypothetical makes it clear that Person B does not have clean hands. Please re-read it, or let me know how I have mis-read you.

 

[Cylinder]

You mean No then right? My hypothetical makes it clear that Person B does not have clean hands. Please re-read it, or let me know how I have mis-read you.

I'm contemplating a situtation where both parties have clean hands.

I am moving out of my townhouse. I've moved all the furniture, etc...empty house. My lease agreement states I have until end of business Wed to move out.

The landlord shows you the townhouse in the interim. You are ready to sign the lease but you need to move in Tuesday. He sees I'm out and executes the lease on the spot. You move in Tuesday.

I come back late Tuesday night, after you go to bed to check the apartment before I surrender the key. An argument ensues and esclates to the point where both have reasonable fear. Someone pulls a gun and gets in the kill shot. We both have a right to be there. Neither has a duty to retreat. Basically the loser (no matter who it is) ends up dead and the winner walks.

Yup - reread the OP and there's no way to determine that Person B had unclean hands.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

What he was doing might be relevant, if the defense can find out. Or it might not.

However, what if TM was back at the housing area well before GZ notices him? It might lend credence to GZ finding him suspicious. There may even be other residents who saw TM wandering the complex before GZ did.

TM might be on a security camera at the complex well before GZ arrives.

It could call into question the story that TM left in the middle of that basketball game for a quick trip to the 7-11.

Assuming the reports of his arrival and departure at the 7-11 are accurate, of course.

That's a lot of ifs there. Unless there is some rare Perry Mason moment where some security camera somehow catches TM doing something odd, I just can't fathom how it matters. In fact, I think the only reason it's even mildly interesting is because it seems to conflict with the story the media spoon fed which seemed to suggest he was "walking home from 7/11" when it seems like maybe 7/11 was just one place he had been. I don't know the area, but I mean, maybe he stopped for a piece of pizza on the way home too. Or maybe he was talking to his GF and just walking.

Don't get me wrong, if I was the defense I'd be asking these questions too and seeing if there was CCTV footage, but I'd rate the likelihood of it being relevant as low.

 

[LTC8K6]

That's a lot of ifs there. Unless there is some rare Perry Mason moment where some security camera somehow catches TM doing something odd, I just can't fathom how it matters. In fact, I think the only reason it's even mildly interesting is because it seems to conflict with the story the media spoon fed which seemed to suggest he was "walking home from 7/11" when it seems like maybe 7/11 was just one place he had been. I don't know the area, but I mean, maybe he stopped for a piece of pizza on the way home too. Or maybe he was talking to his GF and just walking.

Don't get me wrong, if I was the defense I'd be asking these questions too and seeing if there was CCTV footage, but I'd rate the likelihood of it being relevant as low.

Well, the obvious suggestions are that he was engaging in criminal activity. Buying/smoking weed, casing the houses, etc.

Not allowed to discuss those possibilities, though, so we won't.

Buying a new screwdriver.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I'm contemplating a situtation where both parties have clean hands.

I am moving out of my townhouse. I've moved all the furniture, etc...empty house. My lease agreement states I have until end of business Wed to move out.

The landlord shows you the townhouse in the interim. You are ready to sign the lease but you need to move in Tuesday. He sees I'm out and executes the lease on the spot. You move in Tuesday.

I come back late Tuesday night, after you go to bed to check the apartment before I surrender the key. An argument ensues and esclates to the point where both have reasonable fear. Someone pulls a gun and gets in the kill shot. We both have a right to be there. Neither has a duty to retreat. Basically the loser (no matter who it is) ends up dead and the winner walks.

Yup - reread the OP and there's no way to determine that Person B had unclean hands.

In fact I think your argument is even possible. That is, one of the possibilities here is that both parties "had clean hands" and that this was simply an exceptionally tragic confluence of events.

Even acknowledging that possibility seems to be an abomination to the "anti-GZ folk" and they immediately bring up all sorts of red herrings like "GZ is the one with the gun", or "only one person ended up dead", but it's irrelevant to the fact that legally it's possible, and that you don't convict people for bad judgment.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Buying a new screwdriver.

LOL. But for completely innocent purposes. Don't forget that.

 

[Dcdrac]

or TM was jsut buying skittles and iced tea

 

[This is The End]

I'm contemplating a situtation where both parties have clean hands.

I am moving out of my townhouse. I've moved all the furniture, etc...empty house. My lease agreement states I have until end of business Wed to move out.

The landlord shows you the townhouse in the interim. You are ready to sign the lease but you need to move in Tuesday. He sees I'm out and executes the lease on the spot. You move in Tuesday.

I come back late Tuesday night, after you go to bed to check the apartment before I surrender the key. An argument ensues and esclates to the point where both have reasonable fear. Someone pulls a gun and gets in the kill shot. We both have a right to be there. Neither has a duty to retreat. Basically the loser (no matter who it is) ends up dead and the winner walks.

Yup - reread the OP and there's no way to determine that Person B had unclean hands.

I'm sorry but that is not the same as my hypothetical at all.

In yours both people have reasonable fear at the same time.

"An argument ensues and esclates to the point where both have reasonable fear. "

That is not the case in my hypothetical.

I really don't know how you are making this mistake, or how I could have made it clearer.

Person A did nothing at all before Person B put Person A's life in threat.

 

[This is The End]

I seriously can't believe I have to do this but I will try and clarify the hypothetical with another one.

Person A is walking down the street minding his own business.

Person B walks up to Person A, brandishes a gun, says "I am going to kill you", and fires the gun at and hits Person A.

Person A, who now has reasonable fear for his life and legally can return with like force, then pulls out a gun and shoots Person B.

Person B then shoots Person A in the head and Person A dies.

Person B tries to claim it was justified under self defense because he had reasonable fear for his life after Person A, legally, started to return fire.

 

[Cylinder]

I seriously can't believe I have to do this but I will try and clarify the hypothetical with another one.

It was a good faith attempt to answer your hypthetical. Since nothing indicated otherwise, I assumed clean hands

Person A is walking down the street minding his own business.

Person B walks up to Person A, brandishes a gun, says "I am going to kill you", and fires the gun at and hits Person A.

Person A, who now has reasonable fear for his life and legally can return with like force, then pulls out a gun and shoots Person B.

Person B then shoots Person A in the head and Person A dies.

Person B tries to claim it was justified under self defense because he had reasonable fear for his life after Person A, legally, started to return fire.

Person B would have no justification claim. Assuming Florida statutes, 776.041(1) states that a claim of justification is not available to a person who "is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony." The forcible felony in your example would be attempted murder.