Trayvon Martin

[lostfan]

Would it be possible to legislate additional responsibility upon people who do choose to carry a concealed weapon? Basically, in the case of an armed person, raise the standard for what is a "Self defense shooting" significantly? Make this type of person actually have legal consequences if they don't stop and size up the situation before taking the shot.

 

I really have no idea how this could work, but if you won't give me "Get the gun out of his hands in the first place" as an option, then weakening his authority to shoot (the opposite of what SYG laws are doing) is about all I have left.

I dunno about Florida but usually people who get concealed carry permits are required to go to training on the proper use of deadly force

[Balta1701]

I dunno about Florida but usually people who get concealed carry permits are required to go to training on the proper use of deadly force

I found courses listed on Google that satisfy the state of Florida's requirement in about 3 hours. According to other site, a permit lasts 7 years after obtained. So, a 3 hour training course every 7 years appears to be the requirement.

[Jenksismyhero]

So now let's say that Trayvon was 18 not 17, and he was carrying an actual gun and not just pictures of ones in his phone (it's funny to me that the pro-Zimmerman crowd had a problem with THAT, it's ok for some people to have guns and not others, kinda says it all but anyway). Then let's say he was being followed and then confronted (which he feels is threatening), so at what point does he get to claim he was acting in his own defense? Leaving aside exactly what happened because we don't know and and whether he was right or wrong to escalate because it's irrelevant, if he kills Zimmerman and goes to trial - definitely would happen despite the alternate reality Zimmerman's lawyer seems to live in where Zimmerman wouldn't even be arrested if he was black - is a jury going to come to the same conclusion and find him not guilty because the state couldn't prove its case completely? I have very little confidence in that kind of outcome. Black men get put on death row on less.

 

If there was overwhelming evidence that Zimmerman was pummeling Martin's head into the curb, and he was forced to shoot in self defense, he absolutely should walk. If you're being tailed and never physically touched, I don't think you could ever convince a jury that you feel imminent death/great bodily harm.

 

 

[Balta1701]

If there was overwhelming evidence that Zimmerman was pummeling Martin's head into the curb, and he was forced to shoot in self defense, he absolutely should walk. If you're being tailed and never physically touched, I don't think you could ever convince a jury that you feel imminent death/great bodily harm.

That still doesn't answer the "what could Martin legally have done to protect himself" question?

 

He's got an unidentified man following him. This is a threatening action by all accounts. Whether he should be running up to whatever house he can find and asking for help, screaming, or attacking the guy first, everyone has basically agreed "unidentified man following you" is a position where Martin is being threatened and has some sort of right to defend himself. If he knocked Zimmerman to the ground with a body blow, that's not an unreasonable response. If he tried to knock the guy out to give himself time to get away, that's not an unreasonable response to that situation. Shooting first without any other action would clearly be unreasonable, but at some point he'd have the right to defend himself with a gun if he had one. Is it when Zimmerman reaches for his weapon? Is it if Zimmerman throws a punch or grabs him?

 

At what point does the kid get the right to shoot?

[cabiness42]

What would the law say? Instigating fights negates self-defense, that's already law. I know in your dream world concealed carry wouldn't be legal, but that's not happening so there's no change there. So what, if you disobey 911 operators you lose your self-defense rights? Really? Is that where we want to go?

 

I have no problem with the fact that Zimmerman had a gun. I also have no problem with the fact that he profiled Martin and called the police as a result. It was very unfortunate for Martin that he was walking through a neighborhood where there had been several crimes committed by people fitting his description.

 

I do have a problem with Zimmerman getting out of his vehicle and following/looking for the kid after being told not to by the police operator. Crime prevention by citizens should never be about engaging someone unless you are actually witnessing the person in the act of a crime. I guess it's an extension of the court system in that it's better to let a few people get away with crimes rather than convict (or in this case, kill) one innocent one.

 

I don't know how you write a law that draws that line. I'm glad that's not my job.

[Jenksismyhero]

Would it be possible to legislate additional responsibility upon people who do choose to carry a concealed weapon? Basically, in the case of an armed person, raise the standard for what is a "Self defense shooting" significantly? Make this type of person actually have legal consequences if they don't stop and size up the situation before taking the shot.

 

I really have no idea how this could work, but if you won't give me "Get the gun out of his hands in the first place" as an option, then weakening his authority to shoot (the opposite of what SYG laws are doing) is about all I have left.

 

Why should someone with training on a gun be given less rights to defend themselves? Gun training is about the weapons, not analyzing how much your life is in danger. You don't learn how long you have to wait or how badly you have to be hurt before you can shoot. It's a judgment call. It's context-based. Which is why it should be left to your peers to decide if you acted properly or not.

 

[MexSoxFan#1]

Seems to me this case is going to be one of the times we are thankful this country has two systems in which they can prosecute another. There was not enough evidence to state that Zimmerman killed Martin in cold blood, and frankly, he was doing what he needed to ensure he was not killed, thus, they could not convict him criminally of this crime. But, had Zimmerman not gotten involved, Martin would still be alive, so there is absolutely a wrongful death involved here.

 

I'm guessing the civil suit is going to be much stronger and much more likely to lead to a conviction. As has been mentioned, Zimmerman was found not guilty, which is not the same as innocent. We know he shot and killed Martin. Due to the level of guilt, if tried in a civil court, he very well could/should be found guilty and the Zimmerman family will owe a great deal of money to the Martin family.

 

I don't feel that letting Zimmerman out would be the same as letting Jason Holmes out. This isn't a psychotic lunatic who is bound to kill again. I believe he was a vigilante who got in over his head and made a snap decision that cost another human being their life, and that is incredibly unfortuante. He should still be tried civilly, because there is absolutely some level of guilt here that should be dealt with.

I disagree, Z has a history of violence. He had to take anger management classes. He beat his former gf. He's been called a Jekyll and Hyde by a co-worker(s). He had a run-in with a law enforcement officer. There's his altercation with a Daniel Osmun. A neighbor accused Z of repeatedly stalking him, right up to his front door. He was called overly aggressive as a security guard...something like this was bound to happen sooner or later (especially since this moron had a gun).

 

This is a guy with issues, he's prone to making terrible decisions, he has a gun, believe me, this won't be the last time we hear him getting in trouble.

Edited July 15, 2013 by MexSoxFan#1

[lostfan]

If there was overwhelming evidence that Zimmerman was pummeling Martin's head into the curb, and he was forced to shoot in self defense, he absolutely should walk. If you're being tailed and never physically touched, I don't think you could ever convince a jury that you feel imminent death/great bodily harm.

Not my question, though. What legal protection does Trayvon have to defend himself in that situation? Oh, let's add "Zimmerman is unarmed" to this. Is a jury of five white women and a Latina going to give a black kid with a gun the benefit of the doubt when he claims self-defense against an unarmed white man (I know Zimmerman is hispanic but whatever he's fair-skinned) and find him "not guilty?" I'm thinking no and there's statistical evidence to back that up that I don't have the time to look up right now. And here is not where I'm calling for new laws, I'm pointing out this is where society itself f***s up. The whole reason this case ever bothered me in the first place.

[Balta1701]

Why should someone with training on a gun be given less rights to defend themselves?

Because the consequences of them making a mistake are "the person they shoot at is dead".

 

They've taken an enormous responsibility upon themselves. If a person carrying a concealed weapon makes a wrong decision, someone winds up dead.

 

I can make a mistake in a post on Soxtalk and no one dies.

[lostfan]

I just noticed Trayvon's name is spelled in the title and now it bothers me but because I'm a s***ty mod I can't change it.

[Jenksismyhero]

That still doesn't answer the "what could Martin legally have done to protect himself" question?

 

He's got an unidentified man following him. This is a threatening action by all accounts. Whether he should be running up to whatever house he can find and asking for help, screaming, or attacking the guy first, everyone has basically agreed "unidentified man following you" is a position where Martin is being threatened and has some sort of right to defend himself. If he knocked Zimmerman to the ground with a body blow, that's not an unreasonable response. If he tried to knock the guy out to give himself time to get away, that's not an unreasonable response to that situation. Shooting first without any other action would clearly be unreasonable, but at some point he'd have the right to defend himself with a gun if he had one. Is it when Zimmerman reaches for his weapon? Is it if Zimmerman throws a punch or grabs him?

 

At what point does the kid get the right to shoot?

 

When he fears imminent death. It's the same standard that applies to everyone. And you may or may not get a jury of your peers to agree with you.

 

And btw, I don't agree that knocking someone down with a body blow or trying to knock them out for being followed is an appropriate response. Screaming for help, calling 911, running to the closest house, etc. are more reasonable actions.

[lostfan]

When he fears imminent death. It's the same standard that applies to everyone. And you may or may not get a jury of your peers to agree with you.

And btw, I don't agree that knocking someone down with a body blow or trying to knock them out for being followed is an appropriate response. Screaming for help, calling 911, running to the closest house, etc. are more reasonable actions.

ding ding ding

 

If you're black, that leans much closer towards "may not"

[Jenksismyhero]

I have no problem with the fact that Zimmerman had a gun. I also have no problem with the fact that he profiled Martin and called the police as a result. It was very unfortunate for Martin that he was walking through a neighborhood where there had been several crimes committed by people fitting his description.

 

I do have a problem with Zimmerman getting out of his vehicle and following/looking for the kid after being told not to by the police operator. Crime prevention by citizens should never be about engaging someone unless you are actually witnessing the person in the act of a crime. I guess it's an extension of the court system in that it's better to let a few people get away with crimes rather than convict (or in this case, kill) one innocent one.

 

I don't know how you write a law that draws that line. I'm glad that's not my job.

 

For all we know Zimmerman intended to stay 30 feet away. It was 20 minutes of "stalking" or "chasing" right? If Zimmerman really intended to confront Martin he had every opportunity to do so. But he didn't. He stayed in his car and kept his distance until he couldn't see Martin anymore.

 

I mean look, I don't understand why people think that's such a horrible thing. In the City of Chicago if you get robbed you don't even get police to show up at your door anymore to look around. You call it in and report it. The only hope you have of catching the criminal is if he comes back and robs other places around you and is eventually seen by someone. So being a little proactive in your neighborhood is about your only shot. Debate all you want about whether Zimmerman is just a dirty racist, but his intentions to me were perfectly reasonable given the circumstances.

[Y2HH]

For all we know Zimmerman intended to stay 30 feet away. It was 20 minutes of "stalking" or "chasing" right? If Zimmerman really intended to confront Martin he had every opportunity to do so. But he didn't. He stayed in his car and kept his distance until he couldn't see Martin anymore.

 

I mean look, I don't understand why people think that's such a horrible thing. In the City of Chicago if you get robbed you don't even get police to show up at your door anymore to look around. You call it in and report it. The only hope you have of catching the criminal is if he comes back and robs other places around you and is eventually seen by someone. So being a little proactive in your neighborhood is about your only shot. Debate all you want about whether Zimmerman is just a dirty racist, but his intentions to me were perfectly reasonable given the circumstances.

 

Nothing points to Zimmerman being a racist, no matter how badly some people wish he was.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

When he fears imminent death. It's the same standard that applies to everyone. And you may or may not get a jury of your peers to agree with you.

 

And btw, I don't agree that knocking someone down with a body blow or trying to knock them out for being followed is an appropriate response. Screaming for help, calling 911, running to the closest house, etc. are more reasonable actions.

If he's in a position where you agree he is fully within his rights to call for help, run, or call 911, ten he's in a position where it's just as reasonable for him to attempt basic physical self defense.

 

911 is not going to bring help before this guy finds him.

[EvilMonkey]

Nothing points to Zimmerman being a racist, no matter how badly people wish he was.

Really? twitter thinks otherwise.

[Y2HH]

Really? twitter thinks otherwise.

 

Unfortunately for Twitter, there is this: http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2012/05/23/zimme...-white-officer/

 

A year before killing Martin, Zimmerman tried to get a white officers pension revoked for beating a black homeless man and covering it up.

 

Because that sounds like something a guy who hates black people would do.

[Jenksismyhero]

Because the consequences of them making a mistake are "the person they shoot at is dead".

 

They've taken an enormous responsibility upon themselves. If a person carrying a concealed weapon makes a wrong decision, someone winds up dead.

 

I can make a mistake in a post on Soxtalk and no one dies.

 

What's the mistake here? It's either self-defense or it's not. He didn't use the weapon improperly or irresponsibly, he felt compelled to use it and a jury agreed. If he had a knife on him and he stabbed Martin and killed him it would have been the same decision.

 

Nor do I believe that the gun played any role in Zimmerman's thinking about whether to tail Martin. I don't think he ever wanted to confront him. He stayed in his car for 20 minutes. That doesn't sound like someone who was itching for a fight.

[EvilMonkey]

Unfortunately for Twitter, there is this: http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2012/05/23/zimme...-white-officer/

 

A year before killing Martin, Zimmerman tried to get a white officers pension revoked for beating a black homeless man and covering it up.

 

Because that sounds like something a guy who hates black people would do.

Don't forget he has a black grandmother.

 

[lostfan]

Nothing points to Zimmerman being a racist, no matter how badly people wish he was.

I don't think Zimmerman was a racist (meaning I don't think he was itching to kill a black kid) but I do think he caused Trayvon's death as a direct consequence of his actions, it would not have happened otherwise, and that he ultimately bears responsibility for it. That responsibility apparently is no reflected in Florida criminal court but it certainly will in civil court. However there are a ton of other racial aspects that are being ignored or are misunderstood and in some cases they're cheered and encouraged unfortunately which really pisses me off.

[cabiness42]

I don't think Zimmerman was a dirty racist. I think he was a guy who was very frustrated over the rash of crime in his neighborhood and was trying to improve the situation.

 

However, I stand by my belief that if you are not a police officer, you don't follow/chase somebody unless you actually see them committing a crime. It doesn't matter that Zimmerman never intended to actually confront him. It is realistic to expect that if somebody is following/chasing you that you might initiate a confrontation out of fear. This is exactly why you don't do that. A 17 year old male who hadn't actually committed a crime ended up dead because Zimmerman went a little bit too far in trying to prevent crime.

 

It clearly doesn't rise to the level of murder, and probably not probably not even manslaughter, but there has to be some level of accountability here.

[Y2HH]

I don't think Zimmerman was a racist (meaning I don't think he was itching to kill a black kid) but I do think he caused Trayvon's death as a direct consequence of his actions, it would not have happened otherwise, and that he ultimately bears responsibility for it. That responsibility apparently is no reflected in Florida criminal court but it certainly will in civil court. However there are a ton of other racial aspects that are being ignored or are misunderstood and in some cases they're cheered and encouraged unfortunately which really pisses me off.

 

I agree, I think this was the result of his poor judgement/actions.

[lostfan]

If he's in a position where you agree he is fully within his rights to call for help, run, or call 911, ten he's in a position where it's just as reasonable for him to attempt basic physical self defense.

 

911 is not going to bring help before this guy finds him.

Being black and walking while otherwise minding your business is apparently a valid reason to call 911. Comforting to know that's the country that I live in and that's what people see when I'm not wearing a suit or playing with my son or doing something else inherently non-threatening.

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't think Zimmerman was a dirty racist. I think he was a guy who was very frustrated over the rash of crime in his neighborhood and was trying to improve the situation.

 

However, I stand by my belief that if you are not a police officer, you don't follow/chase somebody unless you actually see them committing a crime. It doesn't matter that Zimmerman never intended to actually confront him. It is realistic to expect that if somebody is following/chasing you that you might initiate a confrontation out of fear. This is exactly why you don't do that. A 17 year old male who hadn't actually committed a crime ended up dead because Zimmerman went a little bit too far in trying to prevent crime.

 

It clearly doesn't rise to the level of murder, and probably not probably not even manslaughter, but there has to be some level of accountability here.

 

I think having to live in hiding and fear for your life probably for the next 10 years (if not for life) is a pretty good punishment for him.

[Y2HH]

I don't think Zimmerman was a dirty racist. I think he was a guy who was very frustrated over the rash of crime in his neighborhood and was trying to improve the situation.

 

However, I stand by my belief that if you are not a police officer, you don't follow/chase somebody unless you actually see them committing a crime. It doesn't matter that Zimmerman never intended to actually confront him. It is realistic to expect that if somebody is following/chasing you that you might initiate a confrontation out of fear. This is exactly why you don't do that. A 17 year old male who hadn't actually committed a crime ended up dead because Zimmerman went a little bit too far in trying to prevent crime.

 

It clearly doesn't rise to the level of murder, and probably not probably not even manslaughter, but there has to be some level of accountability here.

 

This has everything to do with the type of person Zimmerman is.

 

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I sure as hell can speak for myself. If I'm witnessing a crime in progress (other than a kidnapping), I'm calling the police and getting the hell out of there, I'm sure as hell not chasing someone down, though.

 

The ONLY way I'd pursue is if I saw someone trying to take a kid against his/her will, and it was obvious this was a kidnapping in progress...damn sure I'd call the police and risk my life to stop it. But if I see a "suspicious" guy lurking around, I'll call the cops and as far as I'm concerned at that point, I'm out.