Trayvon Martin

[Norseman82]

The fact that the 911 tapes released reveal that the 911 operator told Zimmerman not to follow Martin is the key here and works against him.

[kujo]

[size=4]Here is the exact verbiage of the law. I've bolded the section that appears to be salient in this case:

[quote]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
© 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. [url="http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0900-0999/0943/Sections/0943.10.html"]943.10[/url](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.
[i][b](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.[/b][/i]
(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.
© “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.[/quote]

In this case, Zimmerman will argue that he assumed that there existed a danger of "death or great bodily harm" to himself [i]and/or[/i] one of his neighbors, even while Trayvon was running away. The defense will say that the burden of proof otherwise lies with the defense. And since there is only circu[font=Trebuchet MS]mstantial evidence, including character assassinations ("he's a wannabe cop," "he's a racist"), he will be set free. [/font][/size]

Edited March 24, 2012 by kujo

[4588686]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1332598167' post='2406998']
*The shooter didn't know the person had skittles and a snapple.
*The shooter didn't know how old the person was.
*The shooter didn't know the person didn't have a gun. [/QUOTE]

So? The kids didn't approach him. He didn't start the confrontation. Zimmerman assumed, incorrectly, that the teenager did not belong in the neighborhood, and chose to initiate a confrontation. Again, may I say, floopy him. He chose to start a fight. Even if he was losing the fight (which he was responsible for), that's no reason to kill the kid. He outweighs him by like 100 pounds. He was not in danger. This man is a piece of poo.

[QUOTE] *The shooter did know there had been a rash of burglaries, and there was someone walking around his neighborhood. [/QUOTE]

I have burglaries in my neighborhood. I guess I too can chase down and confront every black male I see walking through there.

[QUOTE] *Someone pointed out the shooter had blood on him which is evidence of a fight.
[/quote]

There would not have been a fight had Zimmerman not chased after a kid who was minding his own business. At best, at the very best, he shot this 17 year old skinny kid who he outweighed substantially, because he was losing a fight that he bore responsibility for. There is no excuse for this kid being dead and no matter how you cut it Zimmerman bears responsibility for his death.

[kujo]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1332614391' post='2407140']
There is no excuse for this kid being dead and no matter how you cut it Zimmerman bears responsibility for his death.
[/quote]

Responsibility? Yeah, he bears that. But "legal culpability?" Not under this law...

[4588686]

[quote name='r2Dtoo' timestamp='1332599951' post='2407006']

What does skin color have to do with this? What makes you think Hispanics can't stereotype? We will never know if that's what he was doing, however.


[/quote]

Nah. Everybody knows that Hispanics are magically immune from being racists.

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1332614864' post='2407145']
Responsibility? Yeah, he bears that. But "legal culpability?" Not under this law...
[/quote]

That's what I mean. His legal responsibility is questionable. But there is no doubt about his personal, moral responsibility.

[r2Dtoo]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1332613289' post='2407132']
[size=4]Here is the exact verbiage of the law. I've bolded the section that appears to be salient in this case:



In this case, Zimmerman will argue that he assumed that there existed a danger of "death or great bodily harm" to himself [i]and/or[/i] one of his neighbors, even while Trayvon was running away. The defense will say that the burden of proof otherwise lies with the defense. And since there is only circu[font=Trebuchet MS]mstantial evidence, including character assassinations ("he's a wannabe cop," "he's a racist"), he will be set free. [/font][/size]
[/quote]
One could just as easily look at Section 3 of that law as applying to the teenager who had every right to be where he was and was attacked by a man that massively outweighed him, and lost. That's how the prosecution would argue the case. Will race come up? As a motive, but you don't have to prove he's a racist to convince a jury that he had some sort of ulterior motive than self-defense.

When your dealing with a self-defense trial weight plays a big, if not the biggest, factor with juries especially in cases like this where neither of the two owned the land where this happened. Juries are looking for some justification that the accused "reasonably believed", as the law says, that his life was in danger or the victim was in the commission of the felony. Both are going to be pretty hard considering (a) the accused was much bigger in size than the victim and (b) there is absolutely no evidence that the victim was committing a felony(keep in mind blaming the victim usually backfires with juries). The addition of the words "meet force with force" is interesting. That could possibly be used to argue that since the victim had no gun shooting him was completely out of line, and unreasonable.

Unless more facts are out there that have not yet been presented it is incredible that this has case has not yet even gone to trial. It looks open and shut for the prosecution to me.

Or race is involved, and Florida still wants to keep blacks "in their place".

Edited March 24, 2012 by r2Dtoo

[Mercy me]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1332614864' post='2407145']
Responsibility? Yeah, he bears that. But "legal culpability?" Not under this law...
[/quote]

This is where we get into the gray area. It might appear that Zimmerman was following which is offensive behavior not defensive.

There is a lot we don't know here and we need to trust the authorities to sort it out and press or not press whatever charges that are appropriate.

I pray for all involved. This is a horrible situation for all.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1332603806' post='2407043']
I didn't know this but I do know that the initial report that I'd read about it said that when the police arrived, Zimmerman was soaking wet from head to toe and had glass on his back. Indicating some sort of struggle.

Amen

What responses? One's that demand evidence before we jump to conclusions about Zimmerman's intentions and/or motivations with regards to race? How is that worse...

This is why the law itself is flawed. Zimmerman is not the only individual to have been protected by this law as such. We're only talking about it because certain individuals have turned it into a conversation about race, when it has little to nothing to do with race.

Unfortunately you, nor the mainstream media has reported on him being covered in water and glass, along with this questionable blood splatter.

That's the problem. You and others have turned this into a case of racism without a spec of evidence. There is more important problems with this case but those will never get addressed because everyone is talking about the red-herring in this case, which is racism or the lack thereof.

Agreed



The problem is that the current facts don't support race, they support politics.
[/quote]Society attempts to maintain order with the institution of laws. We have freedom of speech and freedom go form our opinion. We also have the responsibility to allow and sip port the legal system to act. It's more likely the flaws of the law contributed to Trayvons death then racism. It doesn't help society to inflame emotional passions based on limited information and conjecture and allow the real problem go ignored. What if Zimmerman was black? Would the outrage be about not arresting a black Zimmerman because he just shot another black? Would there have been an outcry because Sanford police didn't investigate because it was a black on black shooting?

Florida isn't the only state with a Stand your ground law. It isn't about race. Its about a person visiting a neighborhood getting shot. Are we allowed to ask a stranger in our neighborhood who they are? If so, what is reasonable contact? What is a reasonable response when challenged? What if Tray said he's visiting his dad at apartment 2134B and kept walking?

Things don't happen in a vacuum. Just because Tray was only 17 doesn't make him safely non- threatening. This week a 16 yr old kid was convicted of first degree murder for shooting a cop in Tampa when the cop stopped and got out of his car with a pencil and pad of paper. It's not about race. It's about society working out how to allow people to protect themselves and family, while protecting freedoms amidst people who don't respect life or property.

Dead is final regardless of race. Trayvon did not deserve his death and it's a horrible tragedy for him, his family, and society. Solving the problem isn't going to be helped with induced public hysteria that ignores the facts. That's why we humans try to create civil structures and governments. The other choice is vigilantes and revenge mobs.

Sorry about the typos. I'm not fluent with my iPod

Edited March 24, 2012 by Anomaly

[Archaeology cat]

Sipping port while the legal system works sounds good, Anomaly (I often have some interesting autocorrects on my posts, so no worries).

Seriously, though, I agree with your post.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='r2Dtoo' timestamp='1332606228' post='2407066']While I'm not sure exactly how anyone's comments "make it worse". I stand by my comment that you can not change human nature. People are going to form opinions based on what is presented to them. If there is evidence indicating otherwise than the police owe it to the public to release it. This idea that "we don't have all the facts and therefore we should withhold judgement" is just some utopian ideal that you an others are pushing. It will not work.[/quote]

Well the problem is when they turn all vigilante and form a mob going on a witch hunt. And with all the online petitions to "have zimmerman arrested" that's what it has turned into.

[quote]Don't pretend the Second Amendment has anything to with this.[/quote] Umm, I didn't invoke the second amendment but thinks for your concern pumpkin...

[quote]I have? I specifically said we will never know the answer to that question.
[/quote] Umm... no you've said that there is evidence for it and there is not a shred.

[quote name='Mercy me' timestamp='1332608513' post='2407080']
The Stand Your Ground law is very specific. It was written to avoid vigilanteism but to allow people to defend themselves. What had been happening was crime victims were being charged for shooting people who were breaking into their homes or while they were being car jacked. From what I understand of this law and again, I have not been able to find the exact text lately although I have worked with it in the past, once the act of defense is complete and the offender retreats then the protection of the law ends. You can't shoot at someone who is running away.[/quote] What is interesting is that the Miami police chief John F. Timoney called the law unnecessary and dangerous in that "whether it's trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn't want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house, you're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used."

What's even more interesting is that since its passage, shooting deaths with claims of self-defense have nearly tripled and many of them the individuals that died of gunshot wounds were unarmed.

[quote]What I find confusing is how this law applies in this case. I suspect that there is a lot that we don't know here.[/quote]

The current 2011 Florida Statutes provide an exception to the initial aggressor automatically being at fault in confrontations under the exception of Florida Statute 776.041 2(b) for specific cases where "In good faith, the person [i.e., aggressor] withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force." Here is a link to the Florida Senate's own website which outlines this: [url="http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Chapter0776/All"]http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Chapter0776/All[/url]

Stand Your Ground allows an individual to use deadly force if they reasonably believe it is necessary to do so in order to prevent death or great bodily harm, in most circumstances. Basically it can be a loophole for justifiable homicide.

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1332611290' post='2407119']
The fact that the 911 tapes released reveal that the 911 operator told Zimmerman not to follow Martin is the key here and works against him.[/quote]

You're completely incorrect. Advice or orders given through a 911 operator are considered recommendations under the law.

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1332613289' post='2407132'][size=4]In this case, Zimmerman will argue that he assumed that there existed a danger of "death or great bodily harm" to himself [i]and/or[/i] one of his neighbors, even while Trayvon was running away. The defense will say that the burden of proof otherwise lies with the defense. And since there is only circu[font=Trebuchet MS]mstantial evidence, including character assassinations ("he's a wannabe cop," "he's a racist"), he will be set free. [/font][/size]
[/quote]

It's much more complicated then that to be honest. When the police arrived Zimmerman was covered in blood, glass and water. Indicating some sort of struggle had taken place. If the evidence indicates that Trayvon did infact attack him, the law is on Zimmerman's side regardless of weather Zimmerman was following him, outweighed him, etc.

[quote]I have burglaries in my neighborhood. I guess I too can chase down and confront every black male I see walking through there.[/quote] It depends on your individual states laws.

[quote name='r2Dtoo' timestamp='1332619667' post='2407161']
One could just as easily look at Section 3 of that law as applying to the teenager who had every right to be where he was and was attacked by a man that massively outweighed him, and lost. That's how the prosecution would argue the case.[/quote] It won't ever go to court because the law is on the side of Zimmerman. Weight is irrelevant under this particular Law in Florida's legal code.

[quote name='Mercy me' timestamp='1332619695' post='2407162']
This is where we get into the gray area. It might appear that Zimmerman was following which is offensive behavior not defensive.[/quote] Not if he was attempting to follow the teen to find out if he was the burgler who has frequently been targeting this particular neighborhood. That is defensive behavior, on the part of neighborhood watch to protect their neighborhoods.

[Guest]

Yes I do know the facts Trayvon wasn't doing anything wrong. I heard the 911 tape. Zimmerman said Martin looked "suspicious" and like he was on drugs. Zimmerman didn't say Martin was breaking in cars or doing anything wrong. There are phone records with Trayvon talking to his girlfriend 5 minutes before police arrived and he was found dead. His girlfriend said Trayvon knew he was being followed and was trying to walk fast to get away. So don't give me this B.S. we don't know what Trayvon was up to. Or if he was breaking in houses or anything like that. We do KNOW what he was doing. He was walking back from the store after getting some skittles and an iced tea. He was talking to his girlfriend. He was black and had his hood up in the rain.

[kujo]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' timestamp='1332648079' post='2407664']
Yes I do know the facts Trayvon wasn't doing anything wrong. I heard the 911 tape. Zimmerman said Martin looked "suspicious" and like he was on drugs. Zimmerman didn't say Martin was breaking in cars or doing anything wrong. There are phone records with Trayvon talking to his girlfriend 5 minutes before police arrived and he was found dead. His girlfriend said Trayvon knew he was being followed and was trying to walk fast to get away. So don't give me this B.S. we don't know what Trayvon was up to. Or if he was breaking in houses or anything like that. We do KNOW what he was doing. He was walking back from the store after getting some skittles and an iced tea. He was talking to his girlfriend. He was black and had his hood up in the rain.
[/quote]

You're right; on the 25th day of March, 2012, we have all the information necessary to say, with 100% certainty, who Trayvon was and what he was doing out that night.

The problem is that Zimmerman was not privy to all of this information that night. All he saw was a young black male, walking through a tight-knit neighborhood alone at night with his hood up and his hands in his pockets. He was unfamiliar to the self-proclaimed "head" of the Night Watch, and was suspicious because of it. You can call that "racism" or "racial profiling," but I call it analogical reasoning, or schema. It may make us uncomfortable, and it makes for some juicy soundbytes for vultures like the "reverend" Al Sharpton, but the imperfect information possessed by Zimmerman gave him all the cause he needed to feel that there could be something worth calling 9-1-1 over.

EDIT: The rest of the story is up for debate, but lest we all play monday-morning QB, understand that the truth of this situation will never come out, and all we can do is try to create a rough sketch of the events in question. Should Zimmerman have approached Trayvon and confronted him in the way he did? You can't really answer that question without removing all the subsequent information we've learned. If he really felt that this young kid was likely to do others harm, in his mind, his actions were justified. Would I have done it? No, probably not. But disagreeing with his choice does not mean a law has been broken.

Now, if you want to talk about the good ole' boys in the Sanford PD, and all of that, I wholeheartedly agree! I live about 15 minutes from where this all went down, and I can tell you that nothing about their idiocy and incompetence surprises me, especially the parts about them doing their best Keystone Cops impression with the investigation.

Edited March 25, 2012 by kujo

[4588686]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1332649234' post='2407702']
You're right; on the 25th day of March, 2012, we have all the information necessary to say, with 100% certainty, who Trayvon was and what he was doing out that night.

The problem is that Zimmerman was not privy to all of this information that night. All he saw was a young black male, walking through a tight-knit neighborhood alone at night with his hood up and his hands in his pockets. He was unfamiliar to the self-proclaimed "head" of the Night Watch, and was suspicious because of it. You can call that "racism" or "racial profiling," but I call it analogical reasoning, or schema. It may make us uncomfortable, and it makes for some juicy soundbytes for vultures like the "reverend" Al Sharpton, but the imperfect information possessed by Zimmerman gave him all the cause he needed to feel that there could be something worth calling 9-1-1 over.
[/quote]

That's all fine until you get to the part where he chased the kid down and the kid ended up dead. Had he simply called 9-11 this wouldn't be an issue.

[kujo]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1332649408' post='2407709']
That's all fine until you get to the part where he chased the kid down and the kid ended up dead. Had he simply called 9-11 this wouldn't be an issue.
[/quote]

It wouldn't have been as large of an issue, but there would surely have been calls of "racial profiling."

The confrontation shouldn't have happened, but if you read my amended post, you'll see my point of view about that.

[4588686]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1332649611' post='2407713']
It wouldn't have been as large of an issue, but there would surely have been calls of "racial profiling."

[/quote]

Because it was. I mean, by definition that's what he did. That's not always absolutely awful. If there had been reports of a young, think black male burglarizing and all or mostly white neighborhood then fine. Maybe it's not something to celebrate but it's understandable why that presence would arouse attention. But this was supposedly a multi-racial area and it was dark and the kids hood was up (apparently as it was raining) which makes it extremely doubtful that he really just didn't recognize him. It would be hard to recognize anyone under those circumstances. This kid drew his attention because he was black. That's not illegal. But let's not pretend this was anything other than what it was.