Trayvon Martin: 'Shoot first' law under scrutiny

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bezant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TMC said:
I am not a fan of "hate crime’ laws and I think that what was done here was a crime regardless of what the shooter thought of young black men. But the “crime spree” reports are nonetheless troubling. The alleged crime spree was a spate of burglaries. So if none of the alleged burglars were caught, how exactly does the Neighborhood Watch know that they were all young black men?
Click to expand...
Now you’re thinking like I’m thinking. He swore about them always getting away, yet it is somehow ‘known’ that the “majority” of the 8 crimes were committed by young black males. Were there witnesses to all these incidents? Go figure…
 
seekerz said:
Strange how an acquired right (gun ownership) takes precedence over a basic right (right to continue breathing while doing absolutely nothing wrong)
Click to expand...
So the right to own a firearm killed this young man? It wasn’t Zimmerman at all but the Constituation, I understand now.
 
Let’s not hate on the cops yet. We have the benefit of hearing the 911 tapes, and they didn’t (none of the officers on-scene would’ve heard that; at best they get something like “Dispatch to officer 214: report of shots fired with someone screaming for help”). We have Trayvon’s girlfriend’s report about what she heard on the phone; the cops didn’t. At the time, the police only had Zimmerman’s side of the story, and I’m betting that it was something like “This stranger rushed me, and he had his hand in his pocket, and I thought I saw a gun, and I had to shoot.”

The failure to arrest Zimmerman at the time reflects nothing other than the police officers’ conclusions that they lacked probable cause at the time to arrest him; or that they might have probable cause but wanted to run it by the prosecutor’s office before they arrested him; or that they had probable cause but wanted to develop more evidence first.

Once he’s arrested, the speedy trial laws kick in, and his trial must begin within a specific deadline, or the case is dismissed forever. So in some cases it makes sense to get all your evidentiary and investigative ducks in a row before you arrest the defendant.

I read in one report that the case either is soon to be or is already being presented to the grand jury. SOP in many jurisdictions is that, once the prosecutor begins the grand jury process, the police don’t arrest until the grand jury hands down an indictment.

Remember, EVERY state says that killing in self-defense is legal, even if the guy you killed is unarmed, if you reasonably feared for your life (the stand-your-ground statute has nothing to do with this). If the officers were presented with a facially credible witness acknowledging the shoot saying that he reasonably feared for his life, it’s entirely plausible that they would wait to see what the evidence says before arresting.
 
seekerz said:
So if there had been such a crime spree he would have been justified in stopping Martin? Absolutely not.

The kid was doing nothing wrong. Skin color alone is not a valid basis for suspicion.
Click to expand...
I never said that. What I said was, it would be good if they could prove there wasn’t a crime spree. Why? Because it takes away any support this nut case might get.

What would be better? Find out that the crime’s were committed by a woman or a white man or anything other than a black youth. Again to take away ANY support the shooter might get.
FromTheAshes777 said:
So the right to own a firearm killed this young man? It wasn’t Zimmerman at all but the Constituation, I understand now.
Click to expand...
I own firearms. I even have a permit to carry concealed. Does that mean *I *killed him???:eek:
 
maryjk said:
I never said that. What I said was, it would be good if they could prove there wasn’t a crime spree. Why? Because it takes away any support this nut case might get.

What would be better? Find out that the crime’s were committed by a woman or a white man or anything other than a black youth. Again to take away ANY support the shooter might get.

I own firearms. I even have a permit to carry concealed. Does that mean *I *killed him???:eek:
Click to expand...
I also own them and regularly carry one. I was making a point striking at the heart of some of the arguments being made here. That argument seems to be that certain freedoms cause tragedies, therefore we need to simply do away with those types of freedoms, like the freedom to respond to a threat of lethal force with lethal force ourselves. What the man did is already illegal, changing the Stand your Ground law isn’t going to cause someone like this to be treated any differently by law enforcement. Like I’ve said, “Stand your ground” doesn’t mean, “chase down, fight with, and shoot”.

Shredding our Constitution isn’t the answer here.

From what I have read Maryjk we pretty much agree completely on this topic. 🙂
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
It is for me. Carry guns if you like; I can’t stop you, but I personally equate pistol packers with mild case whackos, and act accordingly towards such people. 🤷
Click to expand...
If they are carrying concealed, you will have no idea who they are.

Guarantee you would never guess that I carry concealed.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
It is for me. Carry guns if you like; I can’t stop you, but I personally equate pistol packers with mild case whackos, and act accordingly towards such people. 🤷
Click to expand...
wow, so you admit it?

the Constitution is the real problem? really?
 
maryjk said:
If they are carrying concealed, you will have no idea who they are.

Guarantee you would never guess that I carry concealed.
Click to expand...
Maybe so, but if I knew - I’d just walk away. I left my brother’s house because a guest of his was packing. His home so I had no say about whom he invites in, but I wasn’t required to stay in the presence of a person I considered to be a potential danger to me.
 
FromTheAshes777 said:
wow, so you admit it?

the Constitution is the real problem? really?
Click to expand...
Not the Constitution; just the people who live in such fear that they believe that they must go in public armed. I speak primarily of those who live in cities. Carrying a gun in Wyoming or Idaho or Montana would be fine.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
Yeah. I’m prejudiced against people whom I consider mild whackos.
Click to expand...
But you base this not on an unbiased mental evaluation, but whether they are armed. I know many people who carry a concealed weapon. None that I know have had any mental illness, at least that I am aware of. Maybe I just run in a more mentally-balanced crowd than you.* Or,* maybe I myself am so unbalanced as to be a poor judge of other’s mental health. The latter is as likely as the former. I personally do not have an affinity for firearms and even avoid them in my line of work.

I think the greater indicator of abberrant fixation was that this man had made so many calls to 9-11 and was self-appointed watchman.

*edited to account for personal mental instability
 
pnewton said:
But you base this not on an unbiased mental evaluation, but whether they are armed. I know many people who carry a concealed weapon. None that I know have had any mental illness, at least that I am aware of.
Click to expand...
I like that note at the end. A cautious man, you are. While I obviously can’t be sure of the mental state of such individuals, the perceived need to go forth armed acts as a clue for me.
I personally do not have an affinity for firearms and even avoid them in my line of work.
Click to expand...
A skeet shooter, I have no objections to shotguns or long guns for hunting.
I think the greater indicator of abberrant fixation was that this man had made so many calls to 9-11 and was self-appointed watchman.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
FromTheAshes777 said:
So the right to own a firearm killed this young man? It wasn’t Zimmerman at all but the Constituation, I understand now.
Click to expand...
Did I say that? I just see more passion in some quarters for the former rights (guns) than for the latter (life). Last week there was a gun rights advocate on TV* refusing to even consider* the need for legislation to make parents use safety locks (or whatever it is you use on guns, I’m not a gun person). Her explanation: accidental killings of children are enough ‘punishment’ for the parents - no need for more laws. That’s what I don’t get: the fix whatever you need to fix to save lives, as long it has nothing to do with our gun rights.
 
Godfollower said:
Let’s not hate on the cops yet. We have the benefit of hearing the 911 tapes, and they didn’t (none of the officers on-scene would’ve heard that; at best they get something like “Dispatch to officer 214: report of shots fired with someone screaming for help”). We have Trayvon’s girlfriend’s report about what she heard on the phone; the cops didn’t. At the time, the police only had Zimmerman’s side of the story, and I’m betting that it was something like “This stranger rushed me, and he had his hand in his pocket, and I thought I saw a gun, and I had to shoot.”

The failure to arrest Zimmerman at the time reflects nothing other than the police officers’ conclusions that they lacked probable cause at the time to arrest him; or that they might have probable cause but wanted to run it by the prosecutor’s office before they arrested him; or that they had probable cause but wanted to develop more evidence first.

Once he’s arrested, the speedy trial laws kick in, and his trial must begin within a specific deadline, or the case is dismissed forever. So in some cases it makes sense to get all your evidentiary and investigative ducks in a row before you arrest the defendant.

I read in one report that the case either is soon to be or is already being presented to the grand jury. SOP in many jurisdictions is that, once the prosecutor begins the grand jury process, the police don’t arrest until the grand jury hands down an indictment.

Remember, EVERY state says that killing in self-defense is legal, even if the guy you killed is unarmed, if you reasonably feared for your life (the stand-your-ground statute has nothing to do with this). If the officers were presented with a facially credible witness acknowledging the shoot saying that he reasonably feared for his life, it’s entirely plausible that they would wait to see what the evidence says before arresting.
Click to expand...
The operative words are: “at the time”. Do you know how long ago this happened?
 
maryjk said:
I never said that. What I said was, it would be good if they could prove there wasn’t a crime spree. Why? Because it takes away any support this nut case might get.

What would be better? Find out that the crime’s were committed by a woman or a white man or anything other than a black youth. Again to take away ANY support the shooter might get.

I own firearms. I even have a permit to carry concealed. Does that mean *I *killed him???:eek:
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong in carrying a concealed weapon. Something wrong in having that carrier playing cop in community spaces where people don’t know he’s packing.
 
Even the original sponsor of this bill doesn’t think the shooter should be covered under it.
As the prime sponsor of this legislation in the Florida House, I’d like to clarify that this law does not seem to be applicable to the tragedy that happened in Sanford. There is nothing in the castle doctrine as found in Florida statutes that authenticates or provides for the opportunity to pursue and confront individuals, it simply protects those who would be potential victims by allowing for force to be used in self-defense.
Click to expand...
When the “stand your ground” or “castle doctrine” legislation passed in 2005, the catalytic event that brought the issue to the attention of the Florida Legislature was the looting of property in the aftermath of hurricanes.
Click to expand...
Specifically, there was a situation in the panhandle of Florida where a citizen moved an RV onto his property, to protect the remains of his home from being looted. One evening, a perpetrator broke into the RV and attacked the property owner. The property owner, acting in self-defense in his home, shot and killed the perpetrator.
Click to expand...
It was months before the property owner knew if he would be charged with a crime because of the lack of concrete definition in the statutes regarding self-defense and a perceived duty to retreat by the potential victim.
Click to expand...
Read more: foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/21/trayvon-martins-alleged-attacker-not-covered-under-law-wrote/#ixzz1pnBNBUXY
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, I posted a similar article a few pages ago.

Removing the obligation to retreat does not in any way alter the obligation to use reasonable force. That has already been hammered out over centuries of precedents and legal amendments. Virtually everyone caught dead to rights in the entire history of the human race committing a violent crime has claimed self-defence. As a result, the definition is pretty tight. The “Stand Your Ground” laws do not define it, because it is amply defined elsewhere.

The legislators thought that this would be obvious.

Apparently they were wrong. There seems to be a trend of “Stand Your Ground” and “Castle” laws being interpreted to give certain people the “right” to kill. Some amendments to these laws that make it explicit that this is not what they do seem necessary.

Just for people who are still unclear on the issue of what constitutes self-defence it is well explained here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top