Trayvon Martin: 'Shoot first' law under scrutiny

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Let’s make it clear that the shooter, Zimmerman, should have been arrested and charged. Whether he’s innocent is for a jury to decide. Let’s also note these very troubling facts:

Zimmerman is the son of a State Supreme Court judge, which is maybe why he wasn’t arrested.
Zimmerman has a violent past that included attacking a police officer.
Despite this, Zimmerman got a permit to carry a concealed weapon, which normally is difficult to get and impossible if you have a record like his (again, Supreme Court daddy could be a factor).
911 told Zimmerman to stop following the victim, Martin. He apparently did not.
Martin apparently called 911 to report someone following him and told a friend on the phone that he was being followed. Not exactly the action of a predator.
The officer on the scene wanted to charge Zimmerman and was overruled by higher-ups. Again, powerful family influence?
Zimmerman’s attorney has charged he was badly beaten (broken nose, head bashed against ground), but the video of Zimmerman arriving at the police station soon after shows no sign of this. He also arrives at the station much too quickly (40 minutes) after the shooting to have had serous injuries attended to.

In summary, there is simply no way that Zimmerman should be running free. He should have to go on trial. This is what the rule of law in a democracy is all about. But instead it looks like having a powerful family still allows you to get away with murder in the USA.

Links to above info available on request, I don’t have time right now, but it’s all from mainstream sources.
 
Jerry_Miah said:
Let’s make it clear that the shooter, Zimmerman, should have been arrested and charged. Whether he’s innocent is for a jury to decide.
Click to expand...
In the United States of America you have the presumption of innocence. The police did in fact hold Zimmerman, but when their DA told them that they did not have a case to prosecute him, they let him go.
 
gilliam said:
In the United States of America you have the presumption of innocence. The police did in fact hold Zimmerman, but when their DA told them that they did not have a case to prosecute him, they let him go.
Click to expand...
Point is, it’s for a jury to decide, not for the state attorney when the shooter just happens to be a judge’s kid.
 
jen_fla said:
they both had a right to defend their lives, but one of them put the other person’s life in danger first. that person is the one who is responsible, not the law.
Click to expand...
Maybe if the voters of the state of Florida had not relieved them both of the duty to retreat, this would not have happened. Honestly, I suddenly feel a need to re-examine what Oregon’s law says on this kind of thing.
jen_fla said:
as a side note, people that don’t live in florida should worry about their own state laws and let floridians take care of theirs. florida is not vermont.
Click to expand...
I’ll remember that when I decide where to take my sons on vacation.

I’m not kidding. It is not just what laws are on your books. It is how your police and courts enforce them. I don’t need to put my family in danger so we can see the great state of Florida. If this is not an isolated incident, but just an incident that got a lot of press, that would make a difference to me when I decide where to visit.
 
Jerry_Miah said:
Let’s make it clear that the shooter, Zimmerman, should have been arrested and charged. Whether he’s innocent is for a jury to decide. Let’s also note these very troubling facts:

Zimmerman is the son of a State Supreme Court judge, which is maybe why he wasn’t arrested.
Zimmerman has a violent past that included attacking a police officer.
Despite this, Zimmerman got a permit to carry a concealed weapon, which normally is difficult to get and impossible if you have a record like his (again, Supreme Court daddy could be a factor).
911 told Zimmerman to stop following the victim, Martin. He apparently did not.
Martin apparently called 911 to report someone following him and told a friend on the phone that he was being followed. Not exactly the action of a predator.
The officer on the scene wanted to charge Zimmerman and was overruled by higher-ups. Again, powerful family influence?
Zimmerman’s attorney has charged he was badly beaten (broken nose, head bashed against ground), but the video of Zimmerman arriving at the police station soon after shows no sign of this. He also arrives at the station much too quickly (40 minutes) after the shooting to have had serous injuries attended to.

In summary, there is simply no way that Zimmerman should be running free. He should have to go on trial. This is what the rule of law in a democracy is all about. But instead it looks like having a powerful family still allows you to get away with murder in the USA.

Links to above info available on request, I don’t have time right now, but it’s all from mainstream sources.
Click to expand...
I would love to hear or read the conversation that Martin had with 911. I am sure others here would be very interested in it.
 
EasterJoy said:
Maybe if the voters of the state of Florida had not relieved them both of the duty to retreat, this would not have happened. Honestly, I suddenly feel a need to re-examine what Oregon’s law says on this kind of thing.

I’ll remember that when I decide where to take my sons on vacation.

I’m not kidding. It is not just what laws are on your books. It is how your police and courts enforce them. I don’t need to put my family in danger so we can see the great state of Florida. If this is not an isolated incident, but just an incident that got a lot of press, that would make a difference to me when I decide where to visit.
Click to expand...
Oregon has a “stand your ground” law, it is part of their Castle Doctrine.
 
Jerry_Miah said:
Point is, it’s for a jury to decide, not for the state attorney when the shooter just happens to be a judge’s kid.
Click to expand...
So any time the son or daughter of a judge is accused of something, they must be arrested?

Are they not “innocent until proven guilty,” simply because their father is a RETIRED judge?
 
gilliam said:
In the United States of America you have the presumption of innocence. The police did in fact hold Zimmerman, but when their DA told them that they did not have a case to prosecute him, they let him go.
Click to expand...
I have heard that was an unusual move–I don’t know enough if it was. It seems significant, however, that the chief investigator seemed sceptical of Zimmerman’s account.
 
EasterJoy said:
Maybe if the voters of the state of Florida had not relieved them both of the duty to retreat, this would not have happened. Honestly, I suddenly feel a need to re-examine what Oregon’s law says on this kind of thing.

I’ll remember that when I decide where to take my sons on vacation.

I’m not kidding. It is not just what laws are on your books. It is how your police and courts enforce them. I don’t need to put my family in danger so we can see the great state of Florida. If this is not an isolated incident, but just an incident that got a lot of press, that would make a difference to me when I decide where to visit.
Click to expand...
from wiki:

Many states have some form of Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground law. {{Alabama,[6] Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa[7], Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,[8] South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,[9] West Virginia and Wyoming have adopted Castle Doctrine statutes, and other states (Iowa[10], Montana,[11] Nebraska,[12] New Hampshire, Virginia,[13] and Washington) are currently considering “Stand Your Ground” laws of their own.[14][15][16]

honestly, in my opinion and i have lived in some very rough neighborhoods, it is not the law you have to worry about, but the violent criminals. i’d bet money 98% of them don’t know the law to begin with or care… unlike the the people who get their license who have to take a course and are taught the law.

oregon:

Deadly Force / Castle Doctrine:
Oregon is a Castle Doctrine state and does have a stand-your-ground law.
ORS 161.209-229. Use of force justifiable in a range of scenarios without a duty to retreat specified. Oregon Supreme Court affirmed in State of Oregon v. Sandoval that the law “sets out a specific set of circumstances that justify a person’s use of deadly force (that the person reasonably believes that another person is using or about to use deadly force against him or her) and does not interpose any additional requirement (including a requirement that there be no means of escape).”

taken from here
 
EasterJoy said:
Well, there is the unreality that you might be more likely to tell someone who does not look physically imposing that the neighbors do not appreciate strangers nosing around their back yards.

The point remains that in looking for suspicious behavior, you can easily make someone suspicious and fearful of you. That is not always the positive thing that some think it is! Rather than warding off people who intend you harm and chose you precisely because they figure they can take you in a fight that they have no intention of allowing to become fair, you can pick yourself a fight with someone who initially meant you no harm and is armed only for self-protection!

Confronting possible criminals is not a risk-free undertaking, even if the person you confront is not a criminal threat, and I think the “Stand Your Ground” standard puts everyone more at risk. I also think it inappropriately relieves those who use deadly force in a public place of having to account for their actions, which leaves everyone more vulnerable to attack. Criminals, after all, have this way of knowing where the law affords them protection from prosecution!

IMHO, it is a law that combines with human nature to produce too many unintended consequences.
Click to expand...
Why do you immediatly jump to physical appearence? Zimmerman called about a someone acting off, strange, like he was on drugs. Thats the nature of the call. It was only when the operator asked for the physical description did Zimmerman provide it. People are trying to get into Zs mind and KNOW that it was because of a hoodie or project profiling. There is no eveidenc to support this. There is actually more of a likelyhood not to accept this theory.
 
Bezant said:
I have heard that was an unusual move–I don’t know enough if it was. It seems significant, however, that the chief investigator seemed sceptical of Zimmerman’s account.
Click to expand...
Not enough to convince his superiors to ask for a warrent.
 
Jerry_Miah said:
Let’s make it clear that the shooter, Zimmerman, should have been arrested and charged. Whether he’s innocent is for a jury to decide. Let’s also note these very troubling facts:

Zimmerman is the son of a State Supreme Court judge, which is maybe why he wasn’t arrested.
Zimmerman has a violent past that included attacking a police officer.
Despite this, Zimmerman got a permit to carry a concealed weapon, which normally is difficult to get and impossible if you have a record like his (again, Supreme Court daddy could be a factor).
911 told Zimmerman to stop following the victim, Martin. He apparently did not.
**Martin apparently called 911 to report someone following him **and told a friend on the phone that he was being followed. Not exactly the action of a predator.
The officer on the scene wanted to charge Zimmerman and was overruled by higher-ups. Again, powerful family influence?
Zimmerman’s attorney has charged he was badly beaten (broken nose, head bashed against ground), but the video of Zimmerman arriving at the police station soon after shows no sign of this. He also arrives at the station much too quickly (40 minutes) after the shooting to have had serous injuries attended to.

In summary, there is simply no way that Zimmerman should be running free. He should have to go on trial. This is what the rule of law in a democracy is all about. But instead it looks like having a powerful family still allows you to get away with murder in the USA.

Links to above info available on request, I don’t have time right now, but it’s all from mainstream sources.
Click to expand...
part in bold: source please. i can’t find anything supporting this claim and i would imagine it would be all over the news.
 
Jerry_Miah said:
Point is, it’s for a jury to decide, not for the state attorney when the shooter just happens to be a judge’s kid.
Click to expand...
I’ve got a friend who was involved in the death of two law enforcement officers. He’s been a free man since the incident took place. They didn’t even arrest him for questioning. After it happened the DA decided to press manslaughter charges against him, as far I I know he still has not been put in handcuffs. His lawyer and the state are preparing their cases. I pray he goes free as it wasn’t his fault and would never hurt a flea.
 
jen_fla said:
no, that is zimmerman calling in 911. a previous poster made the claim that trayvon called 911. (see below). i’ve yet to hear anything about that.
Click to expand...
Thank you. People thought that I was crazy. 😦

Yes, I have read many times Zimmerman’s call. Now I want to hear Martin’s call.
 
jen_fla said:
no, that is zimmerman calling in 911. a previous poster made the claim that trayvon called 911. (see below). i’ve yet to hear anything about that.
Click to expand...
Oh, sorry. Martin received a call from his girl friend (or a friend that was a girl) and she stayed on the phone with him until shortly before the fight. We don’t have a transcript of that call. I don’t think it was recorded and it would be considered private anyway.
 
maryjk said:
Thank you. People thought that I was crazy. 😦

Yes, I have read many times Zimmerman’s call. Now I want to hear Martin’s call.
Click to expand...
you were right about oregon too. i just edited my other post and added this:

Deadly Force / Castle Doctrine:
Oregon is a Castle Doctrine state and does have a stand-your-ground law.
ORS 161.209-229. Use of force justifiable in a range of scenarios without a duty to retreat specified. Oregon Supreme Court affirmed in State of Oregon v. Sandoval that the law “sets out a specific set of circumstances that justify a person’s use of deadly force (that the person reasonably believes that another person is using or about to use deadly force against him or her) and does not interpose any additional requirement (including a requirement that there be no means of escape).”

usacarry.com/oregon_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

it looks like half the country has these laws.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top