Trayvon Martin

[iamshack]

It could be male machismo, but I have to believe the reasonable person if they're scared will at least say something to the friend about being uncomfortable. She made it sound like he was more angry/annoyed. That, and you have the near 20 minutes of being followed and he doesn't really do anything other than try to lose the guy. He's not going to a house, he's not screaming for help, he's not calling the cops himself.

 

And on Zimmerman's side I still think it's important to remember he didn't really "chase" or run after Martin until he went in between or around a building and he lost him. He stayed in his car the majority of the time. That to me doesn't sound like someone who wants to start a fight. If he really wanted to confront Martin why wait? Just go up to him right away and ask him what he's up to.

I think "trying to lose him" is doing quite a bit, honestly...but we could go back and forth on this forever. I guess it doesn't sit with me that Zimmerman's right to kill Martin seems to be predicated on the fact that he was losing a fight that I blame him for initiating.

 

I think we'll all just agree to disagree at this point.

[Soxbadger]

Even in a gated residential area? That to me is the difference. There's a limited number of neighbors/strangers in that kind of place. You most likely have seen everyone before. This isn't living in Lincoln Park where you see a hundred thousand different people a day.

 

I lived in the North Suburbs (Lake County), I never assumed random people on a path were criminals, even in a gated community.

 

People walking on the street arent generally criminals. Especially 1 single teenager.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

...and this is where the issue of self-defense will come into play in a civil suit. I may be mistaken or misinterpreting the law as written in Florida, but I believe it grants complete immunity against civil cases in cases of self-defense. Being that Zimmerman was found to have killed Martin out of self-defense, wouldn't that grant him immunity to a civil case?

 

As the law is written:

 

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement office

 

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.

 

I don't think it offers immunity (SYG would if they wanted to try to argue that) but it is a defense just like the criminal case.

[southsider2k5]

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.

 

Thinking in the broad picture, if someone used this phraseology when it came to voting, what would your reaction be. Remember these are both constitutionally protected items here. It has always fascinated me how different rights get treated differently.

[iamshack]

...and this is where the issue of self-defense will come into play in a civil suit. I may be mistaken or misinterpreting the law as written in Florida, but I believe it grants complete immunity against civil cases in cases of self-defense. Being that Zimmerman was found to have killed Martin out of self-defense, wouldn't that grant him immunity to a civil case?

 

As the law is written:

 

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement office

 

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.

This is all true, however, the threshold for proving guilt in a criminal trial is greater than in a civil trial. Usually in a criminal trial, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. In a civil trial, you have to prove that the person is guilty by a "preponderance of the evidence."

 

Therefore, he could be acquitted in a criminal trial because it could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty, but still be convicted in a civil trial by a preponderance of the evidence.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

They way I interpret the statute is that:

 

is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force.

 

So without digging deeper id say that Zimmerman has a pretty strong defense to any civil charge.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Soxbadger

[lostfan]

Thinking in the broad picture, if someone used this phraseology when it came to voting, what would your reaction be. Remember these are both constitutionally protected items here. It has always fascinated me how different rights get treated differently.

If you ask the question in reverse, we ask the same question

[cabiness42]

And on Zimmerman's side I still think it's important to remember he didn't really "chase" or run after Martin until he went in between or around a building and he lost him. He stayed in his car the majority of the time. That to me doesn't sound like someone who wants to start a fight. If he really wanted to confront Martin why wait? Just go up to him right away and ask him what he's up to.

 

No, I don't think Zimmerman wanted to start a fight, but I think his actions could easily have been interpreted by Martin as looking to start a fight, which is why he should never have gotten out of his car in the first place.

 

Here's a key piece of the transcript of Zimmerman's call to the police:

 

Zimmerman: Now he's just staring at me.

Dispatcher: Okay. You said it's 1111 Retreat View? Or 111?

Zimmerman: That's the clubhouse... [Note 3, 3rd picture]

Dispatcher: That's the clubhouse. Do you know what the—he's near the clubhouse right now?

Zimmerman: Yeah, now he's coming towards me.

Dispatcher: Okay.

Zimmerman: He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male.

Dispatcher: How old would you say he looks?

Zimmerman: He's got a button on his shirt. Late teens.

Dispatcher: Late teens. Okay.

Zimmerman: Something's wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out. He's got something in his hands. I don't know what his deal is.

Dispatcher: Just let me know if he does anything, okay?

Zimmerman: How long until you get an officer over here?

Dispatcher: Yeah, we've got someone on the way. Just let me know if this guy does anything else.

Zimmerman: Okay. These assholes, they always get away. When you come to the clubhouse, you come straight in and make a left. Actually, you would go past the clubhouse.[Note 3, 3rd picture]

Dispatcher: So it's on the lefthand side from the clubhouse?

Zimmerman: No, you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left...uh, you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. s***, he's running.

Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?

Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.

 

Martin saw Zimmerman, looked right at him, checked him out, and then ran away from him. At that point, if Martin was planning on breaking into a house, he's abandoned that plan and left. Zimmerman has succeeded in preventing the crime. There was no benefit to anybody by Zimmerman getting out of the car and following/chasing Martin. And it's not unreasonable at that point for Martin to assume that Zimmerman is after him and that he needs to do something.

[southsider2k5]

So out of curiosity, without knowing who threw the first punch, is there a level of "following" someone that allows a person to attack their follower?

[StrangeSox]

This sort of profiling goes way deeper than most would even care to think about, to the point that people often profile against themselves, without even recognizing it.

i.e. internalized racism (or sexism or whatever else)

 

http://racerelations.about.com/od/understa...lizedracism.htm

[EvilMonkey]

If you ask the question in reverse, we ask the same question

The go ahead and put the same restrictions on voting that there currently are on guns.

[StrangeSox]

Fitting the specific profile of people who have been committing crimes in a specific area is a valid reason to call the police. Calling the police about every black kid you see is not OK. Following him closely enough that he apparently thought he was in danger is also not OK.

 

The specific profile was "black person." In four out of eight break-ins, nobody saw any suspects. In two others, suspects were eventually caught (one was a group of three black kids and a white kid, the other was a black kid who lived next door to the house he broke into). That's about as exact of a profile as was available.

 

edit: This Daily Beast article from last year covers the incidents

 

The burglary of Olivia Bertalan’s home was just one of at least eight reported over the previous 14 months

 

Three weeks before Martin’s death another Twin Lakes resident arrived home to discover a kitchen window open and a laptop and gold necklaces missing. Two witnesses said they saw a young black man standing nearby, but they did not see the man break into the home, according to a police report. One witness said he believed it was the same man who had stolen his bike. The next day officers responding to a call confronted three black men and one white man on bikes near the neighborhood. The same witnesses identified one of the men as the same man they saw near the burglarized home. The officers found the laptop in the man's backpack.

 

Last July a rental car was stolen from one townhome along with the car keys, which were inside on a dining room table. The resident awoke in the morning to discover her sliding glass door open. The car was eventually found abandoned. In August a PlayStation and videogames were stolen from another townhome. In September someone vandalized a townhome under construction. In December someone broke into a foreclosed townhome, stopped up a toilet and started the water running. According to a police report, the water flooded the bedroom and caused drywall in the garage to collapse.

 

Officers eventually identified the person who burglarized Bertalan's home as a neighbor. He was arrested but released because, as Bertalan understood it, he was a minor. Both he and the other man were black, according to the police report.

Edited July 15, 2013 by StrangeSox

[cabiness42]

So out of curiosity, without knowing who threw the first punch, is there a level of "following" someone that allows a person to attack their follower?

 

I guess that's the key question. To what extent did Zimmerman's actions seem like an "attack" to Martin, even though there had not yet been any physical contact. I can certainly understand how a kid who is in a strange neighborhood could feel threatened by Zimmerman's actions and how he could feel that striking the first blow was his best chance at survival.

 

[lostfan]

The go ahead and put the same restrictions on voting that there currently are on guns.

You mean you have to fill out a form and register and you go in a database to buy guns too?

 

Here, look - I will tell you a secret: when you're talking voter ID (and only talking voter ID) we dirty libs already recognize that we either have lost or will lose that battle in certain states and have moved on from that and have adapted. So now, making sure everyone has an ID is part of voter registration drives and they take old people to get their state ID and whatnot since now there is ample time to prepare for it. That's not even what's at issue anymore. It becomes a problem when the rules are changed in an election year, when early voting (which is important for people who have to work and can't take off Election Day) hours get cut only in poor/minority/Democratic neighborhoods but not elsewhere, when the lines are like 4 hours long in urban neighborhoods, when state legislatures try to do stuff like divide electoral votes "proportionally" which means according to gerrymandered districts, etc. etc. etc.

[farmteam]

I think "trying to lose him" is doing quite a bit, honestly...but we could go back and forth on this forever. I guess it doesn't sit with me that Zimmerman's right to kill Martin seems to be predicated on the fact that he was losing a fight that I blame him for initiating.

 

I think we'll all just agree to disagree at this point.

Both of the bolded sentences sum up my thoughts on this.

[cabiness42]

The specific profile was "black person." In four out of eight break-ins, nobody saw any suspects. In two others, suspects were eventually caught (one was a group of three black kids and a white kid, the other was a black kid who lived next door to the house he broke into). That's about as exact of a profile as was available.

 

It was more than just being black--he was a certain age and dressed a certain way. I don't think Zimmerman was taking the same actions against a 45-year old black man wearing a collared shirt.

 

[iamshack]

They way I interpret the statute is that:

 

is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force.

 

So without digging deeper id say that Zimmerman has a pretty strong defense to any civil charge.

So is this saying if the police believe you were using deadly force under those circumstances, then you are immune from having a criminal prosecution or a civil action brought against you? I just don't understand how this could be proven in any other way than in a criminal prosecution or in a civil action...

[Jenksismyhero]

The specific profile was "black person." In four out of eight break-ins, nobody saw any suspects. In two others, suspects were eventually caught (one was a group of three black kids and a white kid, the other was a black kid who lived next door to the house he broke into). That's about as exact of a profile as was available.

 

edit: This Daily Beast article from last year covers the incidents

 

It's a good thing the people in the second example were racist and believed the three black kids standing nearby were the culprits. You, SB and others would have thought nothing of them and not gotten your laptop back.

[farmteam]

So is this saying if the police believe you were using deadly force under those circumstances, then you are immune from having a criminal prosecution or a civil action brought against you? I just don't understand how this could be proven in any other way than in a criminal prosecution or in a civil action...

I think it means if there's a specific finding of fact in a criminal trial that the actions at issue were in self-defense, then that finding suffices (for the purposes of this statute) for immunizing Zimmerman from civil liability for those actions.

 

EDIT: Just went back and read the statute Y2HH posted. The statute is saying it can only be proven in a criminal prosecution or civil action; if it's proved in those actions, then they're immune from those actions (kind of circular, but I think you get what I'm saying). As for whether the finding of fact in a criminal prosecution would suffice to immunize Zimmerman from a civil suit, no idea (but my gut tells me it would because the initial criminal trial has a higher burden, assuming the factual/legal issues were identical). I'd assume there's Florida case law on that.

Edited July 15, 2013 by farmteam

[iamshack]

I think it means if there's a specific finding of fact in a criminal trial that the actions at issue were in self-defense, then that finding suffices (for the purposes of this statute) for immunizing Zimmerman from civil liability for those actions.

Even with the different thresholds for guilt?

 

Did they make that finding that the actions were in self-defense? Or just that they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing wasn't a result of self defense?

[farmteam]

Even with the different thresholds for guilt?

 

Did they make that finding that the actions were in self-defense? Or just that they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing wasn't a result of self defense?

Sorry, just went back and edited my original post. You're too quick.

[farmteam]

Even with the different thresholds for guilt?

 

Did they make that finding that the actions were in self-defense? Or just that they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing wasn't a result of self defense?

Not sure. If they didn't, don't see how that could possibly immunize Zimmerman from a civil suit.

[StrangeSox]

It's a good thing the people in the second example were racist and believed the three black kids standing nearby were the culprits. You, SB and others would have thought nothing of them and not gotten your laptop back.

 

not really

 

The same witnesses identified one of the men as the same man they saw near the burglarized home.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

It's a good thing the people in the second example were racist and believed the three black kids standing nearby were the culprits. You, SB and others would have thought nothing of them and not gotten your laptop back.

 

I have insurance, why would I start pretending Im Sherlock Holmes when I can just call up state farm and get a replacement?

 

Seems a hell of a lot cheaper/simpler, wouldnt even want to guess what legal defense fees are for murder.

[iamshack]

Not sure. If they didn't, don't see how that could possibly immunize Zimmerman from a civil suit.

Yeah, it would seem as though they had to, since we know Zimmerman killed Martin. If they didn't find as a matter of fact that it was in self defense, than it would seem to be the wrong verdict.

 

I guess I should actually read the details of the verdict a bit more thoroughly.