Trayvon Martin

[John S]

In Florida, not only can you carry a gun but you can also use it if you feel "threatened". George Zimmerman felt "threatened". He shot and killed Trayvon Martin, who, supposedly, was unarmed.
As of this writing, Mr. Zimmerman has NOT been arrested.
Not only are there protests in Florida but there are also protests in other American cities.

I wonder what, if anything, is going to happen to this law.
In my opinion, this looks like a stupid law - but as most people know by now, I'm anti-gun because owning them and using them is anti-Jesus.

 

[wannabeadesigirl]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Zimmerman is a violent man, and even if guns were outlawed he would've found a way to kill Trayvon. Owning a gun just made it easier for him.

 

[athenken]

The problem here is there will, most likely, be someone who will take it upon themselves to mete out "justice" against this guy should the local authorities not handle it the way they feel it should be.

 

[Yarddog]

In Florida, not only can you carry a gun but you can also use it if you feel "threatened". George Zimmerman felt "threatened". He shot and killed Trayvon Martin, who, supposedly, was unarmed.
As of this writing, Mr. Zimmerman has NOT been arrested.
Not only are there protests in Florida but there are also protests in other American cities.

I wonder what, if anything, is going to happen to this law.
In my opinion, this looks like a stupid law - but as most people know by now, I'm anti-gun because owning them and using them is anti-Jesus.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/03/trayvon-martin-case-timeline-of-events/


Another case:Florida Shooting Focuses Attention on 'Stand Your Ground' Law - NYTimes.com


A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

'Stand Your Ground Law' faces another court test | TBO.com

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

As of this writing, Mr. Zimmerman has NOT been arrested.

That's because no probable cause that George Zimmerman committed a crime actually exists.

I'm anti-gun because owning them and using them is anti-Jesus.

That statement is ridiculous.

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

Zimmerman is a violent man

What evidence do you have to make this statement?

, and even if guns were outlawed he would've found a way to kill Trayvon.

Are you implying that George Zimmerman committed an intentional, premeditated act of homicide without any evidence to show?

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

I also want to add: I am LEO in the area of this occurrence (not Sanford PD). I also do security consultation work in the very immediate area of this occurrence.

I am not intimately familiar with the case as I do not work for Sanford PD. My information is just as limited as yours. However, I am very knowledgeable as to how the laws actually work here. If what we all know to exist in the body of evidence is factual, no arrest could have been made. It's actually a violation of law to make the arrest if probable cause that a person committed a crime is present.

This case is being handled the proper way, by putting it into the hands of the SAO.

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

Also, you might want to listen to the 911 calls here - Teen shooting 911 calls 1-3 | www.wftv.com

These are calls 1-3 after Zimmerman's initial call to non-emergency.

If you listen closely you will hear several things that are important -

1. No caller was a true eyewitness to the entire event. Only to the physical confrontation that preceded the shooting and the aftermath of the shooting. But no caller witnessed the actual shooting nor the events that preceded the physical confrontation.

2. Caller 1 specifically stated that the two people outside, Zimmerman and Martin, were "wrestling", this was before the shooting. So we know that a physical confrontation occurred. Martin was not ordered to the ground at gunpoint and shot "execution style".

3. The voice heard screaming on the calls was not identified in statements. You can hear through the calls exactly why - because nobody had eye's on them during the time they were screaming.

Note: I am not coming to the defense of George Zimmerman, I think he made the wrong choice by confronting Trayvon Martin especially when he was knowledgeable that LEO response was en route. What I am coming to defense of is the law.

The laws in the US are set to protect the innocent, not to punish the guilty. You do not arrest without probable cause, search or seize without warrant, or imprison without due process.

 

[Yarddog]

I also want to add: I am LEO in the area of this occurrence (not Sanford PD). I also do security consultation work in the very immediate area of this occurrence.

I am not intimately familiar with the case as I do not work for Sanford PD. My information is just as limited as yours. However, I am very knowledgeable as to how the laws actually work here. If what we all know to exist in the body of evidence is factual, no arrest could have been made. It's actually a violation of law to make the arrest if probable cause that a person committed a crime is present.

This case is being handled the proper way, by putting it into the hands of the SAO.

As an experienced policeman, do you see the possibility of people "mis"-using this law to use violence where it was not a necessity? Anyone can claim that the threat of violence was present, especially if no witnesses exist.

What measures do first responders take, when questioning the person or persons involved, which may be different than before this law was passed?

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

As an experienced policeman, do you the possibility of people "mis"-using this law to use violence where it was not a necessity? Anyone can claim that the threat of violence was present, especially if no witnesses exist.

I am not experienced in a case where a gun was fired in (claimed) self defense. These cases are actually quite rare. I will say as an aside, that in my experience which is also substantiated by DoJ (dept of justice) statistics, that in the majority of instances the mere presentation of a firearm often stops the commission of a crime.

That being said - could the stand your ground doctrine be used to defend an unjustified use of force in claimed self defense? Yes, it could. Though it's a stretch to say that it is the law's intention.

What measures do first responders take, when questioning the person or persons involved, which may be different than before this law was passed?

There is no difference after the passing of the stand your ground doctrine.

 

[WinBySurrender]

In Florida, not only can you carry a gun but you can also use it if you feel "threatened". George Zimmerman felt "threatened". He shot and killed Trayvon Martin, who, supposedly, was unarmed.
As of this writing, Mr. Zimmerman has NOT been arrested.
Not only are there protests in Florida but there are also protests in other American cities.

I wonder what, if anything, is going to happen to this law.
In my opinion, this looks like a stupid law - but as most people know by now, I'm anti-gun because owning them and using them is anti-Jesus.

While I'd love to see your faulty reasoning on the last sentence, it isn't important. Martin was shot in the back. Even if he was armed, he was nonetheless defenseless. What does that have to do with Zimmerman having a gun? Very little. It wasn't the gun that fired the bullet into Martin, it was Zimmerman. Without a gun, he would have used a knife, a baseball bat or a broken bottle. This nonsense about outlawing guns is what is stupid, not the law, which was designed to cover people who are guilty of nothing more than defending themselves from criminal scum. There is nothing wrong with the law, only the idiot who used it as an excuse to kill Martin.

 

[Yarddog]

I am not experienced in a case where a gun was fired in (claimed) self defense. These cases are actually quite rare.

Yes, but they are increasing rapidly since the law was passed. Still rare but every LEO needs to be aware of this and trained to help ensure that they can help keep criminals from using the law to their advantage.

I will say as an aside, that in my experience which is also substantiated by DoJ (dept of justice) statistics, that in the majority of instances the mere presentation of a firearm often stops the commission of a crime.

Yes, and in the hands of a properly trained police officer the there is usually not a problem but in the case of this young man, we have an inexperienced neighborhood watchman, who was not supposed to have a fire arm.

We cannot say for sure but a trained LEO probably would not have killed the young man.

That being said - could the stand your ground doctrine be used to defend an unjustified use of force in claimed self defense? Yes, it could. Though it's a stretch to say that it is the law's intention.

Of course that is not the intention of the law but the defense is popping up in many places across Florida and I'm sure in other areas which have enacted such laws.

Though this may be a stretch as well, there could very well be cases where off duty or undercover officers are killed because of this law and the perpetrator be found not guilty. We could also see bouncers or others in that type of profession, who have a tendency to become over aggressive being legally killed.

There is no difference after the passing of the stand your ground doctrine.

It seems that there should be, especially if these type of killings continue to rise.

I'll keep you in my prayers. Be safe out there.
This comes from one with several family members in law enforcement.

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

Martin was shot in the back.

There is no evidence of this. I think what you're referring to was a speculation based on an interview conducted by Anderson Cooper.

 

[John S]

That's because no probable cause that George Zimmerman committed a crime actually exists.



That statement is ridiculous.

Did Jesus EVER own or use a weapon? - NO - So therefore my statement is NOT ridiculous. It is "Christian".

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

Yes, but they are increasing rapidly since the law was passed.

It is a claim of some prosecutors that these cases are increasing, they have yet to provide actual numbers. Only one prosecutor, who chose to remain nameless claimed (without substantiated evidence) that cases falling under stand your ground have tripled.

I haven't seen this in the Central Florida/Orlando metro area, which is the second largest metro area in the state.

Still rare but every LEO needs to be aware of this and trained to help ensure that they can help keep criminals from using the law to their advantage.

How? Honestly, how can a patrol officer keep criminals from claiming self defense?

If anything, it's the place of investigators (still LEO's) to gain intel through statements/admissions/confessions during the interview process. Then it is the SAO and possibly the Judge or Magistrate's place to determine if the doctrine applies depending on where the case goes.

Yes, and in the hands of a properly trained police officer the there is usually not a problem

Research "Unjustified Police Shooting" on google. Plenty of people question OIS (officer involved shootings).

but in the case of this young man, we have an inexperienced neighborhood watchman,

Inexperienced and not properly trained, I'd agree. But again, that's not against the law.

who was not supposed to have a fire arm.

This is incorrect. Florida is a shall issue state.

He had a CWP (concealed weapons permit). The firearm that was on his person was carried legally.

We cannot say for sure but a trained LEO probably would not have killed the young man.

This is purely speculation on a hypothetical. LEO's have training and other less-lethal options, Zimmerman did not.

Again, Zimmerman confronting Martin was not the most intelligent thing to do, but it was not unlawful.

Of course that is not the intention of the law but the defense is popping up in many places across Florida and I'm sure in other areas which have enacted such laws.

Or, the media is focusing attention on this doctrine and not understanding that even without this doctrine the same effect is in place due to Florida Statute 776.012 -

[SIZE=-1]776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013
[/SIZE]

Though this may be a stretch as well, there could very well be cases where off duty or undercover officers are killed because of this law and the perpetrator be found not guilty.

There's a Statute to deal with this as well -

[SIZE=-1]776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
[/SIZE]

We could also see bouncers or others in that type of profession, who have a tendency to become over aggressive being legally killed.

But yet that hasn't happened and the doctrine is in place right now. There has only been one case in the Orlando metro that made note of self defense when a bouncer was killed. A knife was used by the defendant, not a gun.

It seems that there should be, especially if these type of killings continue to rise.

Again, but this has not happened.

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

Did Jesus EVER own or use a weapon? - NO - So therefore my statement is NOT ridiculous. It is "Christian".

Jesus never used a computer.

Therefore computers are not Christian, right?

 

[John S]

Duh - Computers weren't invented yet. Weapons were.

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

Duh - Computers weren't invented yet. Weapons were.

Are you trying to imply that Jesus was never violent?

Regardless, this is not the intent of the OP. This issue has been debated on these boards before with scripture supporting either side of the issue when taken out of context. I will not debate it here.

 

[Lovely Lane]

One gun leaves one dead, amazing story. Hope to see some results of the investigation soon. With all the protestor's and Rev Sharpton on hand reminds me of the Duke Lacrosse scandal.

Sure, guns don't kill, people with guns do.

Too, John S, I don't believe that Jesus would go around strapped.

 

[Lovely Lane]

Note: I am not coming to the defense of George Zimmerman, I think he made the wrong choice by confronting Trayvon Martin especially when he was knowledgeable that LEO response was en route. What I am coming to defense of is the law.

Response time, 20 minutes? Can't defend the law if the facts of the case are unknown.

The laws in the US are set to protect the innocent, not to punish the guilty.

That should be a slogan or something even if it is abused daily by cops. The Grand Jury can indite a ham sandwich, that's why the prosecutor loves them, True Bill automatically.

You do not arrest without probable cause, search or seize without warrant, or imprison without due process.

Probable cause can be fabricated. Search and seize without warrant can be accomplished by 'plain view doctrine'. Imprisonment for 3 days, 3 months, one year, or longer while awaiting due process of a speedy trial happens all the time.

Our Justice System is rigged in favor of the wealthy, but we need honorable slogans and phrases to continue the deception of Justice for all.