Trayvon Martin: 'Shoot first' law under scrutiny

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bezant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Catherina, I have not seen or read anything which claimed that Treyvon was an invited guest.

I do agree that Treyvon’s death was a tragedy, and a full investigation is necessary. My point is that I consider both “Castle” and “Stand Your Ground Laws” to be vigilante laws with no place in a civilized society. But Florida and a number of other States have enacted them and use them, allowing homeowners and property owners to use deadly force when confronting intruders with no consequences whatsoever.

I suspect that in the end, Zimmerman will probably not be charged under Florida’s laws, but as happened in the 1960’s - 1970’s during the civil rights movement, he may well be charged under Federal Law for violating Treyvon’s civil rights. That worked then, and may end up being dusted off and used in this and other instance.

The repeal of both “Castle” and “Stand Your Ground Laws” should be attempted, though I do not think that will be easy, especially in the South. It may take Federal legislation and some Federal court cases defending that legislation to put an end to those laws.

Until that happens, I think one would be well advised to stay out of fenced, gated communities unless invited therein, in states with “Castle” and/or “Stand Your Ground” laws. I also think that gun control laws need to be enacted to prevent this sort of thing. We do not need “Wild West” justice.

Blessings,
Irl
 
Lujack said:
I don’t believe this is accurate, especially because Martin, as has been stated before, lacked any official position. He was not an employee or an actual watch captain, any more than I am the neighborhood watch captain in New Oxford, Pennsylvania just by declaring myself as such.
Click to expand...
Let me restate this, since I may have gotten the names mixed up: Actually no, he was not. Florida’s law and the Stand Your Ground Law of the other States which have them - mostly Southern and Mountain States - do not give Trayvon the right to confront and fight Zimmerman because Trayvon was not a resident employee or watch captain of that gated community. He was an intruder.
 
This incident has nothing to do with “Castle Doctrine” or “Stand your Ground” legislation. This is all about an over zelous citizen causing more trouble then existed before he involved himself.

ATB
 
Mickey_Finn said:
This incident has nothing to do with “Castle Doctrine” or “Stand your Ground” legislation. This is all about an over zelous citizen causing more trouble then existed before he involved himself.

ATB
Click to expand...
That is up to the local Police and County Prosecuting Attorney to decide under Florida Law. IMHO, we can expect to see this sort of thing from time to time as long as there are “Castor” and “Stand Your Ground” laws. Don’t like it? Then work to repeal those laws.
 
IAGladfelter said:
Let me restate this, since I may have gotten the names mixed up: Actually no, he was not. Florida’s law and the Stand Your Ground Law of the other States which have them - mostly Southern and Mountain States - do not give Trayvon the right to confront and fight Zimmerman because Trayvon was not a resident employee or watch captain of that gated community. He was an intruder.
Click to expand...
All right, I made a mis-statement that caused some confusion, so let me try again.

Mr. Zimmerman, who shot Trayvon Mitchell, had no official position either-he was neither an employee nor a watch captain, he was just a guy.

Unless (and I hate to nitpick commas), but unless you meant to say
Trayvon was not a resident, employee, or watch captain…
Click to expand...
in which case I now understand what you were saying.
 
Lujack, a “watch captain” or member of a “neighborhood watch” by definition has no official position, which is why they should not be armed at all unless they also hold a Special Police or Auxiliary Police commission. Their only equipment should be a walkie-talkie or a cell phone with photo capability to call the police and take a photo of the intruder for the police. So concealed carry laws are arguably also part of the underlying problem.
 
IAGladfelter said:
Let me restate this, since I may have gotten the names mixed up: Actually no, he was not. Florida’s law and the Stand Your Ground Law of the other States which have them - mostly Southern and Mountain States - do not give Trayvon the right to confront and fight Zimmerman because Trayvon was not a resident employee or watch captain of that gated community. He was an intruder.
Click to expand...
Where are you getting that he was an “intruder”? As I understood it he was visiting his father, you make it sound as if he was trespassing on private property.
 
mommamia said:
Where are you getting that he was an “intruder”? As I understood it he was visiting his father, you make it sound as if he was trespassing on private property.
Click to expand...
That is exactly how I understand it. I don’t understand how some of you got the idea that he was a guest or that his father lived in that community.
 
mommamia said:
Where are you getting that he was an “intruder”? As I understood it he was visiting his father, you make it sound as if he was trespassing on private property.
Click to expand...
Does his father live in the gated community? Or was he cutting through?

I don’t know. Does anyone here?
 
mommamia said:
? You think he was trespassing?
Click to expand...
Yes. I do. That is how I understand this, but the issue is whether that, in itself, warranted the use of deadly force. To me it did not, but with “Castle” and “Stand Your Ground” laws in effect, one should not tempt fate by trespassing into a gated community. The fences and gates are there for a reason. That reason may well be a “fortress” mentality or a form of “Fortress Segregation,” and if so that should be addressed along with the repeal of those “Castle” and “Stand Your Ground” laws,

For what it is worth, my own opinion is that we had Canadian-style gun control laws and the “Castle” and “Stand Your Ground” laws were repealed by a State or Federal “Trayvon’s Law,” and that law and the Canadian-style gun control laws successfully defended in Federal Court, a repeat of this incident would not be likely. But in the meantime, in states with loose gun control laws and “Castle” and “Stand Your Ground” laws, the word should be: “Stay off other people’s property even if you have to walk a long way to get around it as a matter of self-defense.”
 
IAGladfelter said:
Yes. I do. That is how I understand this, but the issue is whether that, in itself, warranted the use of deadly force. To me it did not, but with “Castle” and “Stand Your Ground” laws in effect, one should not tempt fate by trespassing into a gated community. The fences and gates are there for a reason. That reason may well be a “fortress” mentality or a form of “Fortress Segregation,” and if so that should be addressed along with the repeal of those “Castle” and “Stand Your Ground” laws,

For what it is worth, my own opinion is that we had Canadian-style gun control laws and the “Castle” and “Stand Your Ground” laws were repealed by a State or Federal “Trayvon’s Law,” and defended successfully in Federal Court, a repeat of this incident would not be likely. But in the meantime, the word should be: “Stay off the property unless it is not your own.” As a matter of self-defense.
Click to expand...
So, if a visitor to my home walks down the street to the store they are trespassing? Harsh. According to numerous stories he was visiting his father watching a game at his father’s girlfriends house. The house was in the fated community. I may be wrong, but I just looked and found this
Martin was visiting with his father at his father’s girlfriend’s home in a gated community and had gone to buy a bag of Skittles and iced tea at a nearby convenience store and was walking back when the shooting happened
usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/23/10830314-high-school-students-walk-out-in-protest-of-trayvon-martin-shooting
Click to expand...
So I think calling the child an intruder is incorrect at the least. I found it offensive combined with the way you chose to use the term “undesirables” in your earlier post.
 
IAGladfelter said:
That is exactly how I understand it. I don’t understand how some of you got the idea that he was a guest or that his father lived in that community.
Click to expand...
Just about every article points out that his father and stepmother live in that community.
 
I’m not going to make any assumptions about the young man who was shot, nor his shooter. I just hope the Lord takes care of the dead, and the system works out the rest. Either way if the shooter did something wrong, he will pay for it in the end one way or another.

That said, I think it’s pretty sick for people to capitalize on this in the name of racism and gun control. Whether it was an incident of hatred or not, when Sharpton and the rest of the fake moral outrage spineless left get in the trenches with the gangs where blacks are shooting blacks on a daily basis out of hatred for each other and not just popping their heads up whenever it’s a safe white on black crime, then I’ll have some more respect for their empty words.
 
IAGladfelter said:
Yes. I do. That is how I understand this, but the issue is whether that, in itself, warranted the use of deadly force. To me it did not, but with “Castle” and “Stand Your Ground” laws in effect, one should not tempt fate by trespassing into a gated community. The fences and gates are there for a reason. That reason may well be a “fortress” mentality or a form of “Fortress Segregation,” and if so that should be addressed along with the repeal of those “Castle” and “Stand Your Ground” laws,

For what it is worth, my own opinion is that we had Canadian-style gun control laws and the “Castle” and “Stand Your Ground” laws were repealed by a State or Federal “Trayvon’s Law,” and that law and the Canadian-style gun control laws successfully defended in Federal Court, a repeat of this incident would not be likely. But in the meantime, in states with loose gun control laws and “Castle” and “Stand Your Ground” laws, the word should be: “Stay off other people’s property even if you have to walk a long way to get around it as a matter of self-defense.”
Click to expand...
None of the coverage I have seen indicates that Trayvon was trespassing, and Zimmerman didn’t mention it in his call to the police, so I’m confused where you are getting this idea.
 
IAGladfelter said:
Catherina, I have not seen or read anything which claimed that Treyvon was an invited guest.

I do agree that Treyvon’s death was a tragedy, and a full investigation is necessary. My point is that I consider both “Castle” and “Stand Your Ground Laws” to be vigilante laws with no place in a civilized society. But Florida and a number of other States have enacted them and use them, allowing homeowners and property owners to use deadly force when confronting intruders with no consequences whatsoever.

I suspect that in the end, Zimmerman will probably not be charged under Florida’s laws, but as happened in the 1960’s - 1970’s during the civil rights movement, he may well be charged under Federal Law for violating Treyvon’s civil rights. That worked then, and may end up being dusted off and used in this and other instance.

The repeal of both “Castle” and “Stand Your Ground Laws” should be attempted, though I do not think that will be easy, especially in the South. It may take Federal legislation and some Federal court cases defending that legislation to put an end to those laws.

Until that happens, I think one would be well advised to stay out of fenced, gated communities unless invited therein, in states with “Castle” and/or “Stand Your Ground” laws. I also think that gun control laws need to be enacted to prevent this sort of thing. We do not need “Wild West” justice.

Blessings,
Irl
Click to expand...
Of course he was an invited guest.
He and his father were visiting at the home of his father’s girlfriend.
He didn’t break in to her home. He was invited there. That makes
the child an INVITED GUEST. Who imagines that Zimmerman was
privy to the names and presence of all of his neighbors’ invited guests?
That notion is ridiculous and is a good example of “blame the victim.”
The boy was a “suspicious stranger” to Zimmerman.
 
Tonight on the news they interviewed a lawyer who is representing the shooter. According to the interview there was a witness who saw a fight between Martin and the shooter with Martin inflicting a broken nose and what could be caller a grievious wound to the back of Zimmerman’s (the shooter) head. This witness also reported the incident to the Police.

This witness’s claim would seem to support the claim of both an attack by Martin that caused both bodily harm and lead to Zimmerman’s fear of imminent danger and fear of death. The witness’s observation lends support to the use of force by Zimmerman’s.

The castle doctrine refers to the defense of one’s home,. The “stand your ground law” refers in my opinion refers to the defense of your life outside of home.

Martin is 17 or 18 and for all purposes is a man, but a child who like all children can make bad decisions. My problem with this incident revolves around who started this fight between the two. That is a matter of legal investigation.

The Sanford is investigating the incident. The Florida department of law enforcement is overseeing the Sanford investigation to ensure that no mistakes are made. The govenor has empowered a special prosecutor. The Federal Department of Justice is investigating to ensure that Martin’s civil rights were not violated. There is also a governor panel to determine if the “stand your ground” if flawed and should be changed. Somehow between all these investigations I don’t see how a coverup can happen. Overall there will be a multiphased investigation.

The end result of this incident is that a live was cut short and lives have been forever changed. The main focus so far has been a deemed injustice and not on this fight between the two individuals. I think it will all revolve around who started the fight.

We do not have all the facts but we do have a lot unfounded charges by people who are leaders of the community. I grieve for the loss but a rush to judgement is not called for.

My sons when they were teenagers always complained about how they would be treated while in a store that made them feel like criminals. I think that all adults are leery of groups of teenager (no matter what their race, attire, or attitude is. I think that it is part of the aging processs to adulthood.
 
Namwalker said:
I think it will all revolve around who started the fight.

We do not have all the facts but we do have a lot unfounded charges by people who are leaders of the community. I grieve for the loss but a rush to judgement is not called for.
Click to expand...
I also wonder, who started the physical fight - who put his hands on the other person first.

The way the media is reporting this, and the Al Sharptons, seems like rush to judgment to me.
 
This witness’s claim would seem to support the claim of both an attack by Martin that caused both bodily harm and lead to Zimmerman’s fear of imminent danger and fear of death. The witness’s observation lends support to the use of force by Zimmerman’s.
Click to expand...
Martin didn’t chase down Zimmerman, it was the other way around as demonstrated by the 911 tape. You can’t chase someone down, confront them, and then say you feared for your life. If Martin did indeed attack Zimmerman after he’d been chased down then Martin would be protected by the “Stand Your Ground” law, even if he ended up on top of Zimmerman breaking his nose.

The bottom line is that Zimmerman provoked the incident by chasing down Martin.

Peace and God bless!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top