Trayvon Martin

[Texsox]

Why is anyone assuming that this guy had his gun out? No one's assuming that. We're assuming he saw a scary black kid, muttered to the 911 number that they always get away with this, wandered out to confront him, scared the kid to the point that he was telling people on the phone that some one was chasing him, and then at some point they wound up close enough that the kid struck the guy hard enough to hurt him, and then the guy responded by shooting him.

 

Ideally, this should be a crime. In Florida, it isn't.

 

That's about how I see it. Add in the wanna be crime hero personality and the gang image of a hoodie and you have the perfect storm.

[Balta1701]

That's about how I see it. Add in the wanna be crime hero personality and the gang image of a hoodie and you have the perfect storm.

And that is what Florida's voters have decided their state should be.

[StrangeSox]

Some more legal blogging on Florida's SYG law:

 

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2012/03/standin...d-floridas.html

 

[...]Under English common law (the source of the duty to retreat in American law), the duty to retreat was not a universal requirement of self-defense. While the common law required a person to retreat when he acted in self-defense “upon a sudden affray,” he had no duty to retreat when using deadly force to prevent a “forcible and atrocious crime,” such as murder, rape, or robbery. Sometimes, a person was duty-bound not to retreat, such as when he was summoned upon the “hue and cry” to aid the civil authorities to arrest a felon.

 

Although expanding Stand Your Ground laws has become part of the culture war, the existence of Stand Your Ground laws traditionally depended on geography, not politics. Older states generally inherited the duty to retreat from England. As the United States expanded westward, the retreat requirement usually did not follow. Instead, western states followed the “true man” doctrine (not to be confused with the “Truman Doctrine”), named because “true men” do not retreat when faced with danger.

 

With the prevalent use of firearms, the retreat requirement has limited application today. Individuals usually cannot know that they can retreat in complete safety when facing aggressors armed with guns. And the retreat requirement has numerous exceptions, in addition to the “Castle Doctrine,” which exempts people in their homes from the duty to retreat. For example, in those states that require retreat, law enforcement officers making arrests always may “stand their ground” when threatened, and, sometimes, private citizens making arrests are afforded the same privilege. Zimmerman’s right to use deadly force in self-defense under Florida law was approximately equivalent to—and certainly no greater than—a law enforcement officer’s right to use deadly force in a state requiring retreat.

 

This is not to say that completely eliminating the retreat requirement has no drawbacks. Eliminating the duty to retreat often makes it difficult to prosecute shady self-defense claims—such as bar fights and gang conflicts—when both parties should have simply walked away. Prosecutors have an easier time proving that a combatant could have safely withdrawn than convincing juries, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the person did not reasonably believe that he was in danger by “standing his ground.”[...]

[Texsox]

And that is what Florida's voters have decided their state should be.

 

 

Was the current law passed by referendum, which would place it directly on them, or what is passed as most other laws?

 

But not needing to run from criminals strikes a positive chord with most people.

[Balta1701]

Was the current law passed by referendum, which would place it directly on them, or what is passed as most other laws?

No, however several elections have passed since this law was changed following Katrina, and thus, if the Voters strongly disapproved of it they have had multiple chances to make that statement.

 

Instead, they've elected people who have made it a priority to prevent physicians from reminding gun-owners to keep guns locked up so that their kids don't shoot themselves.

[Iwritecode]

The guy was:

 

1. a neighborhood watch captain, and thus had every legal right to follow around and approach people who were deemed "Suspicious" by him in any way.

 

I've read a couple of places that he wasn't actually part of any neighborhood watch.

 

Also the 911 operator specifically told him to not follow and approach the kid.

[Balta1701]

I've read a couple of places that he wasn't actually part of any neighborhood watch.

 

Also the 911 operator specifically told him to not follow and approach the kid.

Can you back that first claim up? He's been generally described as having been a neighborhood watch person.

 

More importantly though, disobeying the instructions of a 911 operator is not a crime. Nor does the fact that the 911 operator told him not to do something mean that any of his future actions became crimes if they weren't previously.

[Soxbadger]

Im not sure neighborhood watch is going to help him, here is an example of a neighborhood watch packet in Florida:

 

http://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/onr/reso...trev610.pdf.pdf

 

Youll notice it specifically states that they are not to take action themselves. They are only to report the observation.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Im not sure neighborhood watch is going to help him, here is an example of a neighborhood watch packet in Florida:

 

http://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/onr/reso...trev610.pdf.pdf

 

Youll notice it specifically states that they are not to take action themselves. They are only to report the observation.

But obviously, that's not a legal document and is in no way instituting a legal requirement upon the members. The only legal statute cited in that document makes it a crime to harass neighborhood watch participants. There are no legal requirements hoisted upon neighborhood watch members by that document. If the State of Florida wanted to institute such a requirement, saying that if instructed to stay away by an authority it was a crime for them to disobey, that might well be within their rights, but unless someone can prove otherwise, they appear to have nothing even close to resembling that kind of statute.

 

The guy felt like he'd reported things and had nothing happen before to people he felt should have been arrested, so this time, he wasn't going to wait on the slow or inadequate police response.

[NorthSideSox72]

More importantly though, disobeying the instructions of a 911 operator is not a crime. Nor does the fact that the 911 operator told him not to do something mean that any of his future actions became crimes if they weren't previously.

 

First, it CAN be a crime under certain circumstances to specifically disobey a 911 operator. That can be interference with official acts.

 

Second, even if it is not, there are some realities here that don't seem to be in dispute. Zimmerman was carrying a gun as a neighbrohood watch captain, which I have read is specifically against the rules for their association. He saw someone he deemed suspicious, though there does not appear to be much reason for that belief. He then pursued the victim, for blocks, against a request not to do so by the 911 operator - what this establishes is that Zimmerman himself created the confrontation. We also know that the victim was on his cell phone talking with his girlfriend about being followed, though we do not have a recording of the exact words exchanged. At some point, a confrontation occurs, the vitcim is killed with a bullet from Zimmerman's gun, and Zimmerman himself is bloodied.

 

That confrontation is the key aspect of course - what happened exactly, we likely will never know. But in my view, the whole concept of stand your ground fails to apply here anyway, because Zimmerman was the pursuer. What this case comes down to, in my view, is what happened in the direct confrontation. Whatever evidence they can find about that is going to be the key to the case. Self defense is still a possibility, regardless of the changes to the law everyone is arguing about. But there is no doubt in my mind that the confrontation itself was caused by Zimmerman's actions, which a jury will most likely find to be inappropriate.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Im not sure neighborhood watch is going to help him, here is an example of a neighborhood watch packet in Florida:

 

http://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/onr/reso...trev610.pdf.pdf

 

Youll notice it specifically states that they are not to take action themselves. They are only to report the observation.

That only makes sense - it is a citizen not given police powers, just like a private security guard, so their primary role is to observe and report. They can only act in so far as any other citizen can act, which is to say, affect arrest for felony in commission (not applicable here), or defend life and limb. Hard to make the argument he was defending life and limb in pursuit, so he's already violated the rules for his role. Defending life and limb MAY apply to the confrontation itself, we will have to see.

 

[Balta1701]

What this case comes down to, in my view, is what happened in the direct confrontation. Whatever evidence they can find about that is going to be the key to the case. Self defense is still a possibility, regardless of the changes to the law everyone is arguing about. But there is no doubt in my mind that the confrontation itself was caused by Zimmerman's actions, which a jury will most likely find to be inappropriate.

And the simple, undeniable fact is that Zimmerman was injured in that confrontation. Thus, by the laws of that state, he was fully legally allowed to pull the trigger in self defense.

 

The only thing you could get him on is a vague concept of starting the confrontation by following the kid. Is it a crime to follow a kid down the street and harass him because you don't want him in that area? I sincerely doubt it.

[NorthSideSox72]

And the simple, undeniable fact is that Zimmerman was injured in that confrontation. Thus, by the laws of that state, he was fully legally allowed to pull the trigger in self defense.

 

The only thing you could get him on is a vague concept of starting the confrontation by following the kid. Is it a crime to follow a kid down the street and harass him because you don't want him in that area? I sincerely doubt it.

The bolded is simply not true. That is not, at all, what the law states. He could have been injured any number of ways. This is entirely you making a big leap.

 

And though I do not know the intricacies of Florida criminal law, I can certainly tell you that partaking in acts which lead to a confrontation can, and sometimes do, result in prosection and conviction of defendents for the consequences of those actions.

 

[Soxbadger]

But obviously, that's not a legal document and is in no way instituting a legal requirement upon the members. The only legal statute cited in that document makes it a crime to harass neighborhood watch participants. There are no legal requirements hoisted upon neighborhood watch members by that document. If the State of Florida wanted to institute such a requirement, saying that if instructed to stay away by an authority it was a crime for them to disobey, that might well be within their rights, but unless someone can prove otherwise, they appear to have nothing even close to resembling that kind of statute.

 

The guy felt like he'd reported things and had nothing happen before to people he felt should have been arrested, so this time, he wasn't going to wait on the slow or inadequate police response.

 

None of this is self defense nor stand your ground. You were saying that as neighborhood watch he had every right to approach anyone who he deemed suspicious.

 

That just doesnt seem to be true. He had any right any other private citizen had, but no extra rights, from what I can tell.

[iamshack]

And the simple, undeniable fact is that Zimmerman was injured in that confrontation. Thus, by the laws of that state, he was fully legally allowed to pull the trigger in self defense.

 

The only thing you could get him on is a vague concept of starting the confrontation by following the kid. Is it a crime to follow a kid down the street and harass him because you don't want him in that area? I sincerely doubt it.

How do you know his injuries weren't caused by Martin's self-defense actions? Maybe Martin tried to defend himself, and in doing so, Zimmerman was injured? That does not give him the right to then shoot Martin. By that logic, I could create a situation by which I was legally allowed to shoot almost anyone merely by engaging them in some attack and sustaining injuries myself.

 

Jeesh, all they have to do is call Dexter. He'd figure it out in 3 minutes based on the blood spatter analysis.

[Jenksismyhero]

And the simple, undeniable fact is that Zimmerman was injured in that confrontation. Thus, by the laws of that state, he was fully legally allowed to pull the trigger in self defense.

 

The only thing you could get him on is a vague concept of starting the confrontation by following the kid. Is it a crime to follow a kid down the street and harass him because you don't want him in that area? I sincerely doubt it.

 

I don't understand why you keep arguing this. It's simply not true.

[Texsox]

That particular neighborhood watch was not associated with the national association. Think of it like a parents group at a school that does not pay dues to the PTA. So it was a neighborhood watch not a Neighborhood Watch™. Just like you can have an association of parents and teachers without having a PTA.

[Texsox]

What the voters seem to have wanted was . . .

 

A criminal in a hoodie confronts you demanding your wallet. You have an option to turn and run or, just like in the movies, you reach into your jeans to get your wallet and pull out a 9mm. Or you are the Korea War vet who instead of exiting the bus, you beat the crap out of the thug in a hoodie who is intimidating you.

 

What they received was . . .

 

Zimmerman

 

Be careful what you wish for.

[Iwritecode]

Can you back that first claim up? He's been generally described as having been a neighborhood watch person.

 

No, I just keep reading different things on whether he was or wasn't.

 

Apparently it comes from the fact that they never registered with USAonWatch.

 

 

Link

 

USAonWatch, the national neighborhood watch organization, said Zimmerman's watch had never registered with the group.

[Texsox]

And near as I can tell there are no requirements to join a national organization to form a neighborhood watch. Most police forces will offer some training regardless of national ties. I suspect most watches do not bother to pay dues.

[iamshack]

How does everyone else on Earth know that it was the opposite?

Absolutely.

 

I'm just arguing the application of the law we've been discussing.

 

Balta seemed to imply that if Zimmerman was injured, he therefore had the right to shoot Martin because presumably he was acting in some form of self-defense.

 

I don't pretend to know what happened and I certainly have made no statements as to what I believe should happen to Zimmerman. I'm just debating the law as it would theoretically be applied.

Edited March 26, 2012 by iamshack

[StrangeSox]

I don't understand why you keep arguing this. It's simply not true.

 

Yeah, there's the reasonable person standard to be met here.

 

The problem is that, more often than not, these scenarios have two witnesses, and one of them is dead.

[StrangeSox]

A criminal in a hoodie confronts you demanding your wallet. You have an option to turn and run or, just like in the movies, you reach into your jeans to get your wallet and pull out a 9mm. \

 

fwiw this is a pretty dumb move unless you're actually trained in hand-to-hand self defense. Much safer just to give over the wallet.

[NorthSideSox72]

Just saw an article, that indicates a 13-year-old witness saw Zimmerman on the ground groaning and bleeding, but without Martin in sight... BEFORE the shooting. So, if Zimmerman is claiming self-defense, that has to mean there were at least TWO confrontations. If not, that means Zimmerman got up from his injured position, chased Martin, then shot him, which would clearly not be self-defense.

 

[Texsox]

This is one of those cases that I trust witnesses less and less, including the girlfriend. False memories are more likely with emotions running so high.

 

Not picking sides and who is, and who is not, telling the truth.