Trayvon Martin: 'Shoot first' law under scrutiny

[donsnow]

The Texas Castle Doctrine does not apply to shoot-outs in public. It only applies to one’s own property.

If one has no duty to retreat in order to exercise self-defense, then Martin too would have had the right to violently defend himself against an agressive Zimmerman. He would not have to wait until Zimmerman gunned him down to attack. Thus, the first blow is irrelevant. Allowing stand your ground to apply in public justifies legal gun fights, as both parties stand their ground.

Goof afternoon, pnewton,

You have stated the crux of this thread: “Stand your ground” vs “duty to retreat”. I’m saying an old English common law principle has no place in American jurisprudence … Florida was also Spanish, not English law before the 1776 American revolution and the 1960’s counter revolution.

Our nation is in the grip of a culture war, and so whether it’s English, French or Spanish original law does matter. My opinion that the 1960’s anti-American revolution is a counter revolution to our 1776 Revolution remains germane to me. Again, most of my forebears came here to get away from English law, which is the source of “Duty to retreat.”

Now, putting aside “duty to retreat” as abrogated by the American revolution and as part of the 1950’s counter revolution of sex and drugs, we are left with “Stand your ground.” in Florida law.

George Zimmerman’s “ground” was as neighborhood watchman.
Trayvon Martin’s “ground” was a journey to his father’s girl friend’s house with a cell phone.

Neither were a threat to the other by doing those things. George’s weapon was not in use, until Trayvon was sitting on top of him beating his face and banging his head against the pavement.

As far as “using a weapon if threatened” is a strawman argument. I have worked armed off and on in cab driving and for two different Texas security companies. I worked with other armed cab drivers and then with other armed uniformed security guards. None of us worried about “threats”. Most of us had common sense and imminent danger was not grounds to draw our weapons. Most of us observed “imminent and evident danger” rule of exercising our right to keep, bear and draw weapons. So, my practical knowledge and experience of bearing arms takes precedence over college class room rhetoric, which is basically biased against gun rights for individuals anyway. The real world is not confined to class room rules. And, yes, I have a few semesters of college and so am speaking from personal knowledge and experience there, too

As far as gun rights making America like the “Old West”, gangs have replaced injuns and PD has replaced the US Calvary, so, yes indeed settlers do need weapons to protect them selves until the PD gets there. That has not changed since the Old West days.

Anyway, I am trying to look at this topic through the lens of Catholic grace and truth, exercising charity and mercy in my regard of both sides. So, my anger at culture war attacks on American gun rights has much abated.

God loves you,
Don.

 

[jen_fla]

No, they cannot use deadly force unless a reasonable person would believe they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm themselves. You see I’m carrying a gun; I see you’re carrying a gun. Its a dark alley and you look threatening. I also look threatening.

Now, if we’re smart we wouldn’t have been walking down dark alleys at night…but let’s say we are. And it is a high-crime area, which is why we both have guns.

you aren’t allowed to expose your gun unless your life is in imminent danger. people with licenses learn in class it has to be concealed.

 

[Lujack]

He was carrying the gun legally, and what are Neighborhood Watch supposed to do, besides “look for trouble?”

If the FBI, DoJ, and DA come to the same conclusion: that there isn’t enough evidence to charge Zimmerman, will you be satisfied?

They are not supposed to be following people around and confronting them. That’s something that every neighborhood watch association maintains very closely.

And if the FBI and DOJ and DA come to the conclusion that there is enough evidence to charge Zimmerman…will you be satisfied?

 

[Bocephus]

They are not supposed to be following people around and confronting them. That’s something that every neighborhood watch association maintains very closely.

And if the FBI and DOJ and DA come to the conclusion that there is enough evidence to charge Zimmerman…will you be satisfied?

No evidence that George even attempted to confront Martin that I know of.

Not to answer for Scipio, but for me alone, I’d be more than happy to see a trial if the evidence is there.

 

[Lujack]

Goof afternoon, pnewton,

You have stated the crux of this thread: “Stand your ground” vs “duty to retreat”. I’m saying an old English common law principle has no place in American jurisprudence …

English common law is the basis of American jurisprudence. John Marshall, the first chief justice of the Supreme Court, relied very heavily on it.

Florida was also Spanish, not English law before the 1776 American revolution and the 1960’s counter revolution.

Yes, but unlike Louisiana, Florida uses English Common Law as the basis of its laws. Louisiana uses the Code Napoleon.

Our nation is in the grip of a culture war, and so whether it’s English, French or Spanish original law does matter. My opinion that the 1960’s anti-American revolution is a counter revolution to our 1776 Revolution remains germane to me. Again, most of my forebears came here to get away from English law, which is the source of “Duty to retreat.”

It is also the source of most other principles of American jurisprudence.

Now, putting aside “duty to retreat” as abrogated by the American revolution and as part of the 1950’s counter revolution of sex and drugs, we are left with “Stand your ground.” in Florida law.

Are you really arguing that the American Revolution was fought out of a desire to avoid the duty to retreat?

Anyway, the Founders of the Revolution were first trying to claim their rights as Englishmen before switching to a demand for independence, and the influence of English legal scholars like Blackstone is visible in the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, and the rulings of Justice John Marshall. So English Common Law is with us from the get-go.

George Zimmerman’s “ground” was as neighborhood watchman.
Trayvon Martin’s “ground” was a journey to his father’s girl friend’s house with a cell phone.

Neither were a threat to the other by doing those things. George’s weapon was not in use, until Trayvon was sitting on top of him beating his face and banging his head against the pavement.

This is your interpretation. Martin’s family is claiming that Zimmerman began the altercation and Martin defended himself, in which case Zimmerman would be in the wrong. He was already in the wrong for getting out of his vehicle and following Trayvon Martin.

As far as “using a weapon if threatened” is a strawman argument. I have worked armed off and on in cab driving and for two different Texas security companies. I worked with other armed cab drivers and then with other armed uniformed security guards. None of us worried about “threats”. Most of us had common sense and imminent danger was not grounds to draw our weapons. Most of us observed “imminent and evident danger” rule of exercising our right to keep, bear and draw weapons. So, my practical knowledge and experience of bearing arms takes precedence over college class room rhetoric, which is basically biased against gun rights for individuals anyway. The real world is not confined to class room rules. And, yes, I have a few semesters of college and so am speaking from personal knowledge and experience there, too

I don’t care about “most of you”, because “most of you” didn’t unlawfully shoot Trayvon Martin.

As far as gun rights making America like the “Old West”, gangs have replaced injuns and PD has replaced the US Calvary, so, yes indeed settlers do need weapons to protect them selves until the PD gets there. That has not changed since the Old West days.

Anyway, I am trying to look at this topic through the lens of Catholic grace and truth, exercising charity and mercy in my regard of both sides. So, my anger at culture war attacks on American gun rights has much abated.

God loves you,
Don.

This case has nothing to do with gun rights and everything to do with the right of Trayvon Martin to exist without being shot down in the street.

 

[Lujack]

Good afternoon, Lujack,

Oh, but it does matter, when your anonymous header and profile don’t show where you’re from, nor your religion. Look at the header on my posts and look at my profile … I post under my identity, not anonymously. And, so, I have one more question: are you even Catholic?

I am. And my anonymous header actually does show my religion. I choose to post anonymously because there is no need for people on here to know my real name. Although for all you know my last name might be Lujack.

And, I’ll tell you why that matters:

“anger has it’s origin in one’s consciousness of having been injured. anger and revenge
are sins against meekness and mercy.” from: “the Light of the world”
by: edward malone, O.S.B

We Catholics and other Christians should show the same charity and mercy in grace and truth to the living Geroge Zimmerman as we do to the dead Trayvon Martin and his family.

By the way, only the media and DOJ and FBI witch hunt have brought the Sanford, Fla PD ruling of self defense into dispute. Without the witch hunt, there’s no dispute.

That’s right. If people simply accepted what the police said was the end of the story, the story would have been over. But it seems from a lot of the evidence that the police work done in this case was somewhat shoddy.

If you don’t like being labeled part of a witch hunt, then drop the grudge against Florida law and view George Zimmerman with Catholic charity and mercy. Or, if you’re not Catholic, then with Christian grace and truth.

God loves you,
Don

So it is unCatholic to feel that cases should be investigated further?

 

[Lujack]

Hi, Lujack,

But, it’s true that the “Duty to retreat” is an old English principle. So, what are you saying that’s not true?

I am saying that many old English principles have been incorporated into American law, and that if you stripped out every principle of English law left int the American legal system, it would fall apart entirely.

By the way, the original law in the entire American SouthWest is Spanish, not English.

God loves you,
Don

The original law, yes. But they use a legal code today that is rooted in English Common Law.

 

[donsnow]

Good evening, all,

Okay, I have caught up reading from my previous posts to today’s posts.

I have confessed my unwarranted anger and put it aside.

I have tried to look at this topic through a broad lens rather than just legal, just NRA, just Catholic nor racial.

I will check back later tonight, barring the unforeseen (my telephone line went dead last night, right after yesterday’s last post by me). I would rather respond to replies to my posts today than come back tomorrow to another ten pages to read to catch up.

Ya’ll have a blessed evening.

God loves all of you, lurkers, too,
Don

 

[Jerry_Miah]

This case has nothing to do with gun rights and everything to do with the right of Trayvon Martin to exist without being shot down in the street.

Exactly.

 

[Bocephus]

Exactly.

Maybe it’s about the rights of Zimmerman to spot suspicious behavior and report it to the police without having to worry about getting beaten down by the suspicious individual?

 

[SwizzleStick]

…They get an F for fake news.

Seems to be a lot of fake news lately, even from “trustworthy, reliable” sources, eh? I recall something about a White George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin. Recall that at some news sources, for quite awhile (and that is still the case for some sources), all the pics of Martin were of a sweet-faced youth and Zimmerman’s only pic shown for that same while was a mug shot with him in an orange jumpsuit. Let’s not forget the 911 recording which was edited in such a way to imply that Zimmerman was a racist. Also, in the video at the police station, how about the network logo being placed over Zimmerman’s head so that a view of any injuries was not possible in most of the video? Even though in some frames, injury was apparent, the lie was still broadcast that Zimmerman was completely free of injury. Then after being called on such blatant nonsense, lo and behold, we get an enhanced version of the same video that clearly shows that Zimmerman was injured after all. Glad we have “trustworthy, reliable” sources for news that we can count on to be accurate and objective.

 

[Jerry_Miah]

Seems to be a lot of fake news lately, even from “trustworthy, reliable” sources, eh? I recall something about a White George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin. Recall that at some news sources, for quite awhile (and that is still the case for some sources), all the pics of Martin were of a sweet-faced youth and Zimmerman’s only pic shown for that same while was a mug shot with him in an orange jumpsuit. Let’s not forget the 911 recording which was edited in such a way to imply that Zimmerman was a racist. Also, in the video at the police station, how about the network logo being placed over Zimmerman’s head so that a view of any injuries was not possible in most of the video? Even though in some frames, injury was apparent, the lie was still broadcast that Zimmerman was completely free of injury. Then after being called on such blatant nonsense, lo and behold, we get an enhanced version of the same video that clearly shows that Zimmerman was injured after all. Glad we have “trustworthy, reliable” sources for news that we can count on to be accurate and objective.

As I noted before:

Yeah they made a dumb mistake (in the edited 911 call). But look at all the stuff in the media trying to blame the dead kid. Look at FOX giving the killer’s father a platform to make any charge he wants, make nonsense claims, unchallenged. The killer’s father actually said “I never foresaw so much hate coming from the president…” What?

Look at ABC showing an “enhanced” video image showing a little mark on Zimmerman’s head, and they show only one frame, as if that proves something. (That whole thing is ridiculous – if Trayvon bashed Zimmerman’s into concrete, Zimmerman would have gone to the hospital. EMT would not have let Zimmerman just walk away like they did, due to liability issues for the EMTs and the police. Zimmerman was examined briefly and cleared to leave; very minor injuries at most, obviously.)

There’s been bad reporting on both sides. But there was only one person packing a gun and literally looking for trouble, and there was only one person, unarmed, left dead. The only reason we are discussing it is because the police bungled the investigation (forcing the Police Chief to resign "temporarily) and the DA mysteriously refused to charge the killer. The lead investigator wanted a manslaughter charge against Zimmerman. If that had happened, this would be a minor story (albeit still a tragedy) and the truth would come out in a trial. Instead it’s a national scandal.

 

[catharina]

Maybe it’s about the rights of Zimmerman to spot suspicious behavior and report it to the police without having to worry about getting beaten down by the suspicious individual?

What suspicious behavior?
You mean the suspicious behavior that existed in the mind of Zimmerman?

That susprious behavior that led Z to follow a stranger (suspiciously) -
and then led to the ‘stranger beat down’ of Zimmerman?

That suspicious behavior - in Zimmerman’s mind?
Look where it led him.

 

[Bocephus]

What suspicious behavior?
You mean the suspicious behavior that existed in the mind of Zimmerman?

That susprious behavior that led Z to follow a stranger (suspiciously) -
and then led to the ‘stranger beat down’ of Zimmerman?

That suspicious behavior - in Zimmerman’s mind?
Look where it led him.

This is a silly.

Are you suggesting that Zimmerman was hallucinating?

 

[catharina]

This is a silly.

Are you suggesting that Zimmerman was hallucinating?

I’m clearly stating that what Z viewed as “suspicious”
would NOT necessarily be viewed in the same light
by most other people or by many other people.

That’s as clear as it can be!

 

[Bocephus]

I’m clearly stating that what Z viewed as “suspicious”
would NOT necessarily be viewed in the same light
by most other people or by many other people.

That’s as clear as it can be!

How do you know?

 

[catharina]

How do you know?

I know this re your earlier post:

Originally Posted by Bocephus
Maybe it’s about the rights of Zimmerman to spot suspicious behavior and report it to the police without having to worry about getting beaten down by the suspicious individual?

That statement can not stand alone.
Z viewed what struck him as suspicious.
That does not mean the behavior was or was not suspicious.

It only means that in HIS opinion, it seemed suspicious.

Neither you nor I can know it was suspicious behavior.
In the view of Zimmerman, he says it was. That’s all we know.

 

[Bocephus]

I know this re your earlier post:

Originally Posted by Bocephus
Maybe it’s about the rights of Zimmerman to spot suspicious behavior and report it to the police without having to worry about getting beaten down by the suspicious individual?

That statement can not stand alone.
Z viewed what struck him as suspicious.
That does not mean the behavior was or was not suspicious.

It only means that in HIS opinion, it seemed suspicious.

Neither you nor I can know it was suspicious behavior.
In the view of Zimmerman, he says it was. That’s all we know.

Exactly.

Zimmerman said he was acting like he was on drugs, maybe as you say he was lying or hallucinating. We do not know. But you can’t prosecute based on assumptions. You can’t assume Martin wasn’t doing anything wrong and convict Zimmerman.

Unless, i repeat UNLESS, you can prove Zimmerman is lying and guilty through some other bit of evidence. The benefit of the doubt should go to Zimmerman who said he was acting like he was on drugs. Which in most peoples book, acting like your on drugs, means you are displaying odd behavior.

 

[catharina]

Exactly.

Zimmerman said he was acting like he was on drugs, maybe as you say he was lying or hallucinating. We do not know. But you can’t prosecute based on assumptions. You can’t assume Martin wasn’t doing anything wrong and convict Zimmerman.

Unless, i repeat UNLESS, you can prove Zimmerman is lying and guilty through some other bit of evidence. The benefit of the doubt should go to Zimmerman who said he was acting like he was on drugs. Which in most peoples book, acting like your on drugs, means you are displaying odd behavior.

Z’s concept of “suspicious” and “acting like he was on drugs” is relevant to Zimmerman.
It’s not a concept that can be accepted as absolute truth or even as unbiased fact.

It’s Z’s presentation to 911 of what he SAID he is seeing.

Why the benefit of the doubt would go to Zimmerman when the other individual
is actually stone-cold-dead seems quite implausible.

 

[Lujack]

Exactly.

Zimmerman said he was acting like he was on drugs, maybe as you say he was lying or hallucinating. We do not know. But you can’t prosecute based on assumptions. You can’t assume Martin wasn’t doing anything wrong and convict Zimmerman.

Unless, i repeat UNLESS, you can prove Zimmerman is lying and guilty through some other bit of evidence. The benefit of the doubt should go to Zimmerman who said he was acting like he was on drugs. Which in most peoples book, acting like your on drugs, means you are displaying odd behavior.

Why should the benefit of the doubt go to Zimmerman and not to Martin? Because Martin is dead and can’t defend himself? Because he was a teenager?

And Zimmerman could have been mistaken. His belief could have been unreasonable without lying.