**Official** Trayvon Martin thread

[RonPaulMall]

Plenty of kids have grills, that doesn't make him a gangster. Lots of kids have them around here have them (Johnny Dang (a.k.a. TV Johnny) here in Houston is a Vietnamese businessman who is kind of the king of grills: http://www.tvjohnny.net/). Just because it's golden-colored doesn't mean it's made of gold.

No doubt. But there is a reason the media is using pictures of the kid from when he was 14 rather than the pictures of the way he looks today. Using the earlier pictures makes it seem like Zimmerman would be crazy to consider the kid a threat, even if the kid attacked him.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

The laws and sentiments will remain for a long time.

To clarify, "sentiment" includes the legal precedents that may be set by how this case is ruled, and on future cases based on new laws that might result from this case.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Again, not trying to be contentious...did you mean to say he does not lose legal justification if he minds his own business? And that he would lose justification if he follows (and, therefore, becomes the aggressor?)

Yes, very simply put it's like this:

If Zimmerman sat in his car, on the phone with 911 and Martin came up, opened the door and starting beating him down, yes, he'd be justified.

If, as the facts seem to be right now, he followed Martin around, after being told not to, and that in turn led to an altercation that required deadly force, then no, he emerges unjustified as far as the law is concerned.

 

[TheTexan]

What if Zimmerman was practicing cartwheels in the grass when Trayvon was accidentally hurt because Zimmerman wasn't paying attention, and then Trayvon thought Zimmerman did it on purpose, and was like "Hey man that's not cool" and then Zimmerman was like "what you gonna do about it" and then he was all like "oh ya I'm gonna do something about it" and then Trayvon got shot.

This scenario is entirely supported by facts, discuss

 

[Anti Federalist]

Justifiable homicide only requires that Zimmerman be engaged in a lawful activity and located in a place he had the legal right to be and then of course for him to be attacked such that he feared great bodily harm. If Zimmerman's account is true, all those criteria have been met and this was a justifiable use of force.

That's just it.

What he was doing, following him around, after being told not to, was not lawful from a DF legal standpoint.

Again, you cannot use deadly force if the attack has stopped and the attacker is leaving or fleeing.

You cannot use deadly force to stop an attack that otherwise would not have happened had it not been for the victim's actions, in this case, following after after being told that "we don't need you to do that".

 

[RonPaulMall]

If, as the facts seem to be right now, he followed Martin around, after being told not to, and that in turn led to an altercation that required deadly force, then no, he emerges unjustified as far as the law is concerned.

First, he was not told to not follow Martin. Please stop repeating that lie. Second, you incur no legal liability for simply following someone. Zimmerman would have had to have committed some unlawful act for the killing to lose justification. For example, grabbing Martin (battery) or saying, "I'm gonna get you sucka" (assault). If all he did was follow Martin and ask him a perfectly reasonable question, he then he was acting lawfully and any attack by Martin could be answered with deadly force under Florida law.

 

[Anti Federalist]

You could be more clear by stop using quotation marks to denote your own personal interpretation of words different than the actual text, and you could be most clear of all by citing the specific statute which makes approaching someone and asking them a question while carrying a gun a crime in the state of Florida. We've cited the actual laws, quoting the statutes in full and asking where you think Zimmerman violated the law. You have responded by ignoring us and simply reiterating your mistaken interpretation of what the law says.

In this case I am not suffering quotation fail, that is an exact quote from the State of Florida's CCW legal web page:

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.

Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.


Q. What if I see a crime being committed?

A. A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman. But, as stated earlier, deadly force is justified if you are trying to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

The use of deadly force must be absolutely necessary to prevent the crime.

Also, if the criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly force to stop him, because you would no longer be "preventing" a crime. If use of deadly force is not necessary, or you use deadly force after the crime has stopped, you could be convicted of manslaughter.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

Florida law also provides that the use of deadly force is not justified if the defendant is charged with an independent forcible felony, and the defendant was attempting to commit a felony or the defendant initially provoked the use of force against himself.

http://www.criminaldefenseattorneytampa.com/FloridaDefenses/DeadlyForceSelfDefense.aspx

From the facts presented thus far:

A - Zimmerman played free lance cop by following Martin AFTER being told by 911 dispatch "we don't need you to do that".

B - Martin was unarmed and was committing no violent felony during the time Zimmerman had him "under surveillance".

C - A fistfight with a minor does not rise to the level of threat that would justify the use of deadly force.

He was unjustified, under current Stand Your Ground Florida law, in responding with deadly force, based on the facts as they appear now.

Was Martin walking away from Zimmerman, or attempting to walk away, when he made the 911 call?

Was Martin walking away from Zimmerman, or attempting to walk away, when dispatch told him, "we don't need you to do that" (meaning follow Martin)?

Did the fight occur after this conversation had taken place?

If the answers to these questions are yes, then Zimmerman had no legal justification to use deadly force.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Yes, very simply put it's like this:

If Zimmerman sat in his car, on the phone with 911 and Martin came up, opened the door and starting beating him down, yes, he'd be justified.

If, as the facts seem to be right now, he followed Martin around, after being told not to, and that in turn led to an altercation that required deadly force, then no, he emerges unjustified as far as the law is concerned.

Thanks for the explanation!

 

[Anti Federalist]

First, he was not told to not follow Martin. Please stop repeating that lie. Second, you incur no legal liability for simply following someone. Zimmerman would have had to have committed some unlawful act for the killing to lose justification. For example, grabbing Martin (battery) or saying, "I'm gonna get you sucka" (assault). If all he did was follow Martin and ask him a perfectly reasonable question, he then he was acting lawfully and any attack by Martin could be answered with deadly force under Florida law.

He was told "we don't need you to do that", as you correctly stated.

That seems very clear.

Once that happened, he lost his justification to use deadly force, especially since he continued to follow him around as Martin tried to leave.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Thanks for the explanation!

Quite welcome.

 

[dannno]

Plenty of kids have grills, that doesn't make him a gangster. Lots of kids have them around here have them (Johnny Dang (a.k.a. TV Johnny) here in Houston is a Vietnamese businessman who is kind of the king of grills: http://www.tvjohnny.net/). Just because it's golden-colored doesn't mean it's made of gold.

Ya, maybe he just got in some harmless fights, lost some teeth and that was the cheapest way to fix them.. but it still makes him look suspicious.

 

[coastie]

Ya, maybe he just got in some harmless fights, lost some teeth and that was the cheapest way to fix them.. but it still makes him look suspicious.

And why, exactly, is that? My best friend is black, has a "grill"-and he also has 2 Master's Degrees.

 

[moo]

Ya, maybe he just got in some harmless fights, lost some teeth and that was the cheapest way to fix them.. but it still makes him look suspicious.

black men with mouth jewelry are suspicious to you? why?

 

[TheeJoeGlass]

My god...





That is the the current "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida.

In no state is it considered legal to pursue somebody and use deadly force against them.

Not to mention that Martin had committed no crime at all.

Even if he had just raped your daughter, YOU CAN NOT LEGALLY FOLLOW SOMEBODY WHO IS FLEEING AND THEN USE DEADLY FORCE.

Not sure what any of this meant because the way you are framing this is incorrect. George Zimmerman has every right to do what he pleases in his own neighborhood. If he wants to follow a resident, he can. At no point did Zimmerman do anything wrong except stop following Martin. If he would have continued to pursue like he should've done, Martin would not be able to sneak up and he would'nt be put in the position to get caught off guard. Martin committed a crime(no bold necessary) when he attacked Zimmerman. Case closed. The last statement you made is almost laughable if not tragic. I have to admit from all the people on this board, your stance befuddles me the most.

 

[TheeJoeGlass]

What makes you think I'm going to answer your snark by doing hours of legal research?

I already did that, last night, for free, to answer the specific questions on Florida law, so that hopefully, it dissuades somebody from acting on what, in my opinion, is reckless legal theory based on a misunderstanding of CCW law.

I am not interpreting anything, I have used direct quotes from the state's CCW website.

That information is consistent with what was taught to me as a Florida CCW holder.

Why are you focused on the CCW? Regardless of what Zimmerman was doing, at no point is he not allowed to defend himself from harm. You have done the very thing you claim to stop, a misunderstanding of Florida law.

 

[MelissaWV]

Every kid is a member of a "gang", the question is whether they are and to what extent they are organized criminally and violent.

This kid had a grill.. How was he able to afford all that gold? Why was he missing so many teeth?

...

Whether he is technically "in a gang" or not isn't as important as whether he instigated a fight and instigated violence against Zimmerman. The grill doesn't help his case, imo, altho there certainly could be a valid explanation.

This was awful, even for you

Why was he missing teeth? I don't know. Do you know that he is missing teeth? Or are they capped? Or is it an actual "piece" that goes over his teeth and is removable?

...a grill (also front or golds) is a type of jewelry worn over the teeth. Grills are made of metal and are generally removable.

How could he afford it? Well, how could he afford the snowboarding trip he was photographed on? How could he afford the computer, the webcam, etc.? There appear to be pot-related allegations, but nothing too solid. However, I would be inclined to think that he didn't pay for all of that with "drug money." It's likely that he either has some sort of income, or his parents gave him some money. Pretty sure those ancient photos of him posing with a snowboard were not taken on a trip paid for with the proceeds from selling pot at school.

Since whether or not he was in a gang is not important, then perhaps it shouldn't be part of the topic, and part of the new set of assertions made about this person. I noticed Zimmerman's left ear is pierced. Perhaps it would do some good to paint Martin as homophobic, since there's that old idea that having just your left ear pierced might mark you as being homosexual.

You've decided he's in a gang because he had some gold teeth in one photo. It's just as logical.

 

[pcosmar]

Not sure what any of this meant because the way you are framing this is incorrect. George Zimmerman has every right to do what he pleases in his own neighborhood. If he wants to follow a resident, he can. At no point did Zimmerman do anything wrong except stop following Martin. If he would have continued to pursue like he should've done, Martin would not be able to sneak up and he would'nt be put in the position to get caught off guard. Martin committed a crime(no bold necessary) when he attacked Zimmerman. Case closed. The last statement you made is almost laughable if not tragic. I have to admit from all the people on this board, your stance befuddles me the most.

And this is exactly why everyone should be armed at all times.

There are a lot of "zimmermans" out there.

Arm your wife,, arm your kids. teach them to shoot.

 

[TheeJoeGlass]

And this is exactly why everyone should be armed at all times.

There are a lot of "zimmermans" out there.

Arm your wife,, arm your kids. teach them to shoot.

Unless it's just a fist fight, then it would be their fault for stopping an attack.

 

[cajuncocoa]

No doubt. But there is a reason the media is using pictures of the kid from when he was 14 rather than the pictures of the way he looks today. Using the earlier pictures makes it seem like Zimmerman would be crazy to consider the kid a threat, even if the kid attacked him.

Manipulation of the emotions of the masses...the media excel at this.

 

[Anti Federalist]

The last statement you made is almost laughable if not tragic. I have to admit from all the people on this board, your stance befuddles me the most.

Why?

If nothing at all, I am consistent with my stance against unlawfully applied force against people.

Martin would not be able to sneak up and he would'nt be put in the position to get caught off guard.

This is a new angle that I am unaware of.

Everything I have seen indicated that Zimmerman got out of his car, followed Martin around a house, was told by 911 dispatch that "we don't need you to do that" then to where he and Martin started fighting, leading to the shooting.

If he wants to follow a resident, he can

He can do whatever he wants.

However, if that can be considered a provocation, and after being told "we don't need you to do that", you can reasonably assume that to be the case, then he loses any legal justification to use deadly force under Florida law.