**Official** Trayvon Martin thread

[Anti Federalist]

Agreed. I have a lot of respect for your opinion and knowledge.

Well thanks, and I yours.

This has become such a heated issue it's almost impossible to find out now what's going on, and that's why justice won't ever be done now.

Like I said all along, I want to make sure that our fellow CCW holders don't get in a bind, and that more gun control doesn't come out of this bloody mess.

 

[RonPaulMall]

The article I linked to provides evidence that some kind of altercation occurred before Zimmerman was on the ground getting what may have been a well deserved beating. If you can't see it...well you just can't see. And there is probable cause for an arrest simply by the fact that Trayvon is dead. Self defense is an affirmative defense. It does not negate the initial probable cause. As an attorney you should know that. Sure at trial the state would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense. But that's not the probable cause standard.

Obviously something occurred prior to them being on the ground. They didn't just materialized there. But "something" occuring is not evidence of a crime. Zimmerman's account of what happened is Martin asking him if he had a problem, Zimmerman responding no, and Martin saying, "well, you do now" and then decking him".

As to your amateur legal analysis, self defense is indeed an affirmative defense in many states. But Florida's stand your ground statute is NOT an affirmative defense. It is an immunity from prosecution. If the police believe Zimmerman's account provides the best explanation for what happened, then the killing was justified and no crime was committed. If Police think that's what happened, they have no probable cause and they are barred from making an arrest.

 

[RonPaulMall]

Because both men retreated. The second that Zimmerman was told to stop and lost Martin, that encounter was a lawful encounter as both men exercised their right to jet. If Zimmerman continued to follow, and if that can be proven, then he is in big trouble.

He was never told to stop. Even if her were told to stop, that would have had to have been an order such that ignoring it would constitute a crime for the statute not to apply. And we don't have to get in to that since he was never given an order, lawful or otherwise, to stop following Martin. This is the essential error the lynch mob media is making. They think it was unwise for Zimmerman to follow Martin, especially after the dispatcher told him he didn't have to do it. But it doesn't matter if his actions were unwise. The only way they would invalidate the statutory condition is if they were unlawful.

 

[Ender]

Trayvon wasn't a criminal until he assaulted Zimmerman which is what the eye witness and police deptartment believe happend. Nothing before the point that Trayvon makes contact which is proven by the eye witness was a crime. Zimmerman was not wrong for asking questions, Martin was not wrong for being black or running away. The only thing that matters is who fired the first shot. If the eye witness who is also black was lying or recants his story, Zimmerman is dog meat. He won't last two days in the federal pen.

Not sure Trayvon was the assaulter- I posted this on another thread but it seems to need reposting:

Trayvon Martin’s Girlfriend Talks About Final Call

On Monday morning ABC News published an interview with a 16-year old girl who is believed to have been on the phone with Trayvon Martin moments before neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman shot him dead.

“He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man,” Martin’s friend said told ABC News, in an interview with lawyers asking the questions because the girl is underage. “I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run.”

ABC News verified phone records and the girl’s statements are believed to be accurate.

“Trayvon said, ‘What, are you following me for,’ and the man said, ‘What are you doing here.’ Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again and he didn’t answer the phone,” the girl went on to say.

http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/...l_moments.html

 

[RonPaulMall]

Not sure Trayvon was the assaulter- I posted this on another thread but it seems to need reposting:

Trayvon Martin’s Girlfriend Talks About Final Call

On Monday morning ABC News published an interview with a 16-year old girl who is believed to have been on the phone with Trayvon Martin moments before neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman shot him dead.

“He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man,” Martin’s friend said told ABC News, in an interview with lawyers asking the questions because the girl is underage. “I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run.”

ABC News verified phone records and the girl’s statements are believed to be accurate.

“Trayvon said, ‘What, are you following me for,’ and the man said, ‘What are you doing here.’ Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again and he didn’t answer the phone,” the girl went on to say.

http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/...l_moments.html

Her statements don't really add anything. She says Trayvon must have been pushed because his earpiece fell off. But his earpiece would also likely fall off if he took a swing at a guy then jumped on top of him and starting punching, and that's exactly what the only person who was actually at the scene of the altercation alleges.

 

[moderate libertarian]

If this CT is true, how can it be confirmed if media owners were in bed with Obama's handlers and masters?

This was a synchronized chorus.

 

[RonPaulMall]

Let's assume the worst and that Martin committed a crime.

Was he trying to leave the area where Zimmerman was?


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

You keep trying to bring up this inapplicable law. The law you are citing means that if Zimmerman saw Martin committing a crime (like robbing a house), he can't chase Martin down and shoot him dead. Apprehending a criminal who is fleeing by using deadly force is not legal. But that has nothing to do with the scenario in the case at hand. Zimmerman was following Martin because he thought he was suspicious, and wanted to ascertain what he was up to, not because he was trying to "stop a fleeing criminal". And he isn't alleging he used force to stop Martin from getting away. Zimmerman says he used violent force because Martin attacked him after the two came face to face. Nothing about the law you are citing is applicable to the facts in this case. It covers an entirely different set of circumstances.

Actually, it looks to me like Zimmerman may be the one who committed the original felony, 'aggravated stalking' meaning stalking while carrying a deadly weapon.

776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ing=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.08.html

I don't think I'm going out on a limb much to say I seriously doubt following someone once, for a period of about 15 minutes, with the express purpose of asking them who they are and what they are doing in your neighborhood, constitutes "stalking" under the laws of any state, much less Florida. Use your head.

 

[fr33]

Chasing down a kid that last week sold drugs to willing buyers = an authoritarian dick

Chasing down a kid while not even knowing the kid sold drugs = a busy-body and likely racial profiler.

Stop chasing down people just because you don't recognize them.

 

[squarepusher]

Phil Hendrie did a comedy bit about a "Citizens Auxiliary Police" character Jay Santos, almost 15 years ago. I uploaded it to youtube, check it out and tell me what you think.

 

[jmdrake]

Obviously something occurred prior to them being on the ground. They didn't just materialized there. But "something" occuring is not evidence of a crime. Zimmerman's account of what happened is Martin asking him if he had a problem, Zimmerman responding no, and Martin saying, "well, you do now" and then decking him".

There is evidence that Zimmerman pushed Trayvon. Just because you don't believe the evidence doesn't mean it isn't there! You assume Zimmerman is telling the truth. I assume Trayvon's girlfriend was telling the truth. She heard sounds of a scuffle. And Zimmerman has not to my knowledge asserted that Trayvon decked him with no warning.

As to your amateur legal analysis, self defense is indeed an affirmative defense in many states. But Florida's stand your ground statute is NOT an affirmative defense. It is an immunity from prosecution. If the police believe Zimmerman's account provides the best explanation for what happened, then the killing was justified and no crime was committed. If Police think that's what happened, they have no probable cause and they are barred from making an arrest.

You're the one playing the amateur here, claiming that you know better than Zimmerman's attorney and the legislator who introduced the bill as to the legislative intent behind it. You also misstated the facts when you disputed the defense attorney's claim that the stand your ground law was mostly about in home self defense. Any honest reading of the statute proves you wrong. And you're using circular reasoning. If the police believe Zimmerman they are barred? What a crock! In any wrongful arrest lawsuit the internal belief of the arresting officer is not the standard. It's the actual evidence. The fact is that police have discretion on whether they should arrest and prosecutors have discretion on whether they should prosecute. If a prosecutor looking at the facts of this case decided the police were wrong and prosecuted Zimmerman, Zimmerman would not win on a malicious prosecution lawsuit just based on the argument that the police decided not to arrest him. You know that. You have to know that.

Regardless, you're making a great case for the repeal of Florida's stand your ground law.

 

[jmdrake]

Her statements don't really add anything. She says Trayvon must have been pushed because his earpiece fell off. But his earpiece would also likely fall off if he took a swing at a guy then jumped on top of him and starting punching, and that's exactly what the only person who was actually at the scene of the altercation alleges.

Link please. Because I think you're just making that up. Everything I've read from this anonymous witness indicates that he didn't see what happened prior to Trayvon being on top of Zimmerman and beating him up.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012

 

[Sam I am]

Her statements don't really add anything. She says Trayvon must have been pushed because his earpiece fell off. But his earpiece would also likely fall off if he took a swing at a guy then jumped on top of him and starting punching, and that's exactly what the only person who was actually at the scene of the altercation alleges.

I think those statements are relevant. If they are taken to be honest then it means that a physical confrontation happened before the verbal confrontation got too escalated, which is actually bad for the prosecution.

 

[angelatc]

I suspect this poor bastard is dog meat anyway.

It will all hinge on exactly when and where the second encounter took place.

Here's a snippet of Florida Law for you to ponder. It says the self defense argument is not available to those who:

1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person 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.

​

So it appears that there is indeed a duty to retreat for those who initially provoked the use of force.

 

[angelatc]

He was never told to stop. Even if her were told to stop, that would have had to have been an order such that ignoring it would constitute a crime for the statute not to apply. And we don't have to get in to that since he was never given an order, lawful or otherwise, to stop following Martin. This is the essential error the lynch mob media is making. They think it was unwise for Zimmerman to follow Martin, especially after the dispatcher told him he didn't have to do it. But it doesn't matter if his actions were unwise. The only way they would invalidate the statutory condition is if they were unlawful.

Here's some quotes from the Sanford Florida Neighborhood Watch Handbook:

What you will not do is get physically involved with any activity you report or apprehension of any suspicious persons.

Here's an interesting section. It specifically defines suspicious behavior. Note that it does not include being black and walking. It does include being under the influence of drugs. Assuming that Zimmerman knew enough about the system to use lingo that would get a response, that would explain why Zimmerman pretended to know that Martin was on drugs.

Gathering (loitering) for an extended or unusual period of time. (Possible burglary, arson, or drug dealing.)
Behaving strangely. (Possibly on drugs or illegal activity.)
With any sort of weapon(s). (Possibly planning any number of crimes.)
Carrying, concealing or transporting anything unusual (Possible burglar carrying stolen property.)
Looking into cars. (Possibly casing cars for theft of car or its contents.)
Selling or conducting business on a street corner, park or other place where business is not licensed.
Running, especially if carrying something of value. (Possible suspect fleeing scene of crime.)
Creating any type of disturbance (Disturbing the Peace or covering up noise of some other activity.)
Going door to door, especially if someone goes to the rear of the residence. (Possibly casing the neighborhood.)
Loiters around schools, parks or on your street. (Possible burglar, sex offense, drugs or arson)

 

[specsaregood]

Here's an interesting section. It specifically defines suspicious behavior. Note that it does not include being black and walking. It does include being under the influence of drugs. Assuming that Zimmerman knew enough about the system to use lingo that would get a response, that would explain why Zimmerman pretended to know that Martin was on drugs.

I'd also suspect that saying that would get a quicker response from the police; based partly on the thought that they would have an easy bust on their hands no matter what.

 

[RonPaulMall]

Here's a snippet of Florida Law for you to ponder. It says the self defense argument is not available to those who:

1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person 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.

​

So it appears that there is indeed a duty to retreat for those who initially provoked the use of force.

Where have you been for the past 66 pages? Everybody agrees that if Zimmerman started the fight he'd have no justification for using deadly force and this would constitute a crime. That is not what Zimmerman claims, however. He claims after they exchanged a few words, Martin punched him in the face then got on top of him and started beating him.

 

[RonPaulMall]

Here's some quotes from the Sanford Florida Neighborhood Watch Handbook:

You sound like Obama and all the Leftists who insisted "Joe the Plumber" couldn't possibly be an actual plumber because he hadn't paid fees to the state to get a license to do plumbing work on his own. I don't care what the Florida Neighborhood Watch Association has to say about this or that. Putting together a neighborhood watch is up to a community, or a group of people within that community, or in the case of the busy body perhaps even just one person in that community. They are under no obligation to follow the advice of some statewide NGO that wants some kind of cut of the action. Their only obligation is that they act lawfully. Show were Zimmerman did anything unlawful, and you have cause to make an arrest. This other stuff is simply distraction.

 

[Joshua2585]

To me, it seems that the initiation doesn't necessarily have to be force. The fact that Zimmerman got out of his car, against the requests of the police and 911 operator, and advanced towards Martin and continued to follow him... that was the initiation of force.

Trayvon was scared... hell, I would be too. It doesn't matter if Trayvon was a thug, covered in tattoos, and doing drug deals on his facebook page... this was murder. Zimmerman shouldn't have gotten out of his car. He is guilty of manslaughter imo.

 

[kahless]

To me, it seems that the initiation doesn't necessarily have to be force. The fact that Zimmerman got out of his car, against the requests of the police and 911 operator, and advanced towards Martin and continued to follow him... that was the initiation of force.

Trayvon was scared... hell, I would be too. It doesn't matter if Trayvon was a thug, covered in tattoos, and doing drug deals on his facebook page... this was murder. Zimmerman shouldn't have gotten out of his car. He is guilty of manslaughter imo.

So if I question someone in my neighborhood and they do not like it they are allowed to get on top of me and beat me to a point of breaking my nose and cracking my head open. Then I should just let them take my life since I was wrong in questioning them?

You could die from a blow to the head and if you are getting beaten where your life is in danger you should be allowed to defend yourself.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I'm confused as to why so many people here seem to think it's an act of provocation to get out of one's car. If the situation had ended differently, and given the SYG law, would TM be justified in defending himself against (shooting, if he had a gun) GZ just because GZ got out of his car??