I've never been much on kissin ass, hidin under my bed, or running away from my domicile, and I don't suppose that will change at this late date. Better to be judged by 12, and my maker than be carried by 6, but that policy has little or nothing to do with the current subject Treyvon Martin's death, as the shooter was not in his home, on his own property nor in any danger--real or percieved.
Nor have I. My motto is and has always been "I'd rather pay your legal bills than your funeral costs."
But there has to be a place where common sense, morality AND the law reach a nexus of sorts.
Should I assume that, from your perspective, that somehow affords Zimmerman sufficient justification for his actions? That there is "no law" that prohibited him from engaging Martin? Under the banner of a Citzens Patrol, he shouldn't have been carrying a weapon in the first place! A CCW permit does not (most certainly SHOULD not) give one license to actively seek out confrontational situations for the purposes of resolving them with a weapon. Also, he was clearly the first of the two to assume the more aggressive stance by confronting Martin for no obvious reason other than his simply being in the neighborhood.
Like it or not, there ARE laws covering THAT.
What law is this "Citzens Patrol" under? Why are they banned from carrying weapons by such a law?
Your CCW argument is a strawman. A CCW gives permission to carry a hand gun for self defense. The question here is whether he acted in self defense or not. It is not whether a CCW gave him a license to kill.
"Confronting" anyone is does not in any way forfiet your right to self defense.
No one in this thread has explained why Zimmerman had a wound on the back of the head. Did Martin hit Zimmerman in the back of the head with the bottle of iced tea or did he slam Zimmerman's head on the ground? Or did Zimmerman "trip"? More likely Martin shares some or most of the blame for getting shot.
Like I said earlier, don't get your hopes up on a murder charge. The best charge that will stick would be manslaughter.
If Zimmerman was getting his ass handed to him, how can you jump to the conclusion that Martin wasn't defending himself from a gun wielding stranger? What should your kids do when faced with getting stalked by armed strangers?
It seems that the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty doesn't extend to the dead.
What law is this "Citzens Patrol" under? Why are they banned from carrying weapons by such a law?
Your CCW argument is a strawman. A CCW gives permission to carry a hand gun for self defense. The question here is whether he acted in self defense or not. It is not whether a CCW gave him a license to kill.
"Confronting" anyone is does not in any way forfiet your right to self defense.
No one in this thread has explained why Zimmerman had a wound on the back of the head. Did Martin hit Zimmerman in the back of the head with the bottle of iced tea or did he slam Zimmerman's head on the ground? Or did Zimmerman "trip"? More likely Martin shares some or most of the blame for getting shot.
Like I said earlier, don't get your hopes up on a murder charge. The best charge that will stick would be manslaughter.
As it related to laws governing the activities of "community watch" organizations, there is indeed legal precedent as established by The state of New York (1981) and, as far as I can ascertain, is the preeminent cited law in such cases. According to the Fordham Law Review, in that case, a summary of the court decision is as follows:
....The right of citizen's arrest is codified in § 140.30 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which provides: any person may arrest another person (a) for a felony when the latter has in fact committed such felony, and (b) for any offense when the latter has in fact committed such offense in his presence. N.Y. CRIM. PROC. LAW § 140.30(1) (McKinney 1981). The statutes in other jurisdictions, too, generally are strict, retaining the common law standards. See The Law of Citizen's Arrest, supra note 12, at 511. See generally 6A C.J.S. Arrest §§ 10, 12-15 (1975); 5 Am. Jur.2d Arrest § 23 (1962). Under New York's provision, "[i]f the offense was not in fact committed, a person may be liable civilly and answerable in damages, even if acting in good faith upon reasonable cause." N.Y. CraM. PROC. LAW § 140.30 (McKinney 1981)
As it related to laws governing the activities of "community watch" organizations, there is indeed legal precedent as established by McKinney v. The state of New York (1981) and, as far as I can ascertain, is the preeminent cited law in such cases. According to the Fordham Law Review, in that case, a summary of the court decision is as follows:
....The right of citizen's arrest is codified in § 140.30 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which provides: any person may arrest another person (a) for a felony when the latter has in fact committed such felony, and (b) for any offense when the latter has in fact committed such offense in his presence. N.Y. CRIM. PROC. LAW § 140.30(1) (McKinney 1981). The statutes in other jurisdictions, too, generally are strict, retaining the common law standards. See The Law of Citizen's Arrest, supra note 12, at 511. See generally 6A C.J.S. Arrest §§ 10, 12-15 (1975); 5 Am. Jur.2d Arrest § 23 (1962). Under New York's provision, "[i]f the offense was not in fact committed, a person may be liable civilly and answerable in damages, even if acting in good faith upon reasonable cause." N.Y. CraM. PROC. LAW § 140.30 (McKinney 1981)
It is called making a citizen arrest and it does not apply here. No one has said that Zimmerman was making a citizen arrest. He was questioning or "confronting" Martin when the scuffle started.
While that confrontation was unwise it is not illegal.
IMHO, yours is a rather conveniently narrow interpretation of the decision. That aside, you asked for pre-eminent law pertaining to the governance of Citizen Patrols and I gave it to you. According to my research, it is the case law most frequently cited and, as far as I can ascertain, successfully applied.
Perhaps you'll be more successful finding legal precedent to preempt it.
Please keep us informed.
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 03-21-2012).]
Well, the discussion, whether it was intended to or not, has drifted into the arena of a law abiding citizen's right to defend themselves and their property with force--deadly or otherwise. SCOTUS has ruled (with certain exceptions) that they do.
Florida's deadly force/Castle Doctrine law seems no more vague than most of the other's I have read, just as most laws are, simply because there is never a "one size fits all" application or interpretation. The implied assertion that there must be some better way to ascwertain whether a real and iminent threat exists, is pretty easily taken care of by re-wording the existing laws, in other words, revert back to the way it was before.
quote
"It used to be that the burden was on the person who shot (did the shooting) to prove they were in danger and needed to use deadly force."
For the most part, it still is that way. That's why almost all shootings of this nature go to the Grand Jury--(here anyway), but I don't expect or reccomend the wording to be changed, especially to something that leaves absolutely no doubt as to the intention of the assailant.
quote
Originally modified by maryjane[i]776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of 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 such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she has recieved prior written and signed before a public notary, an official Notice of Intent to Harm and to Present (themselves) at a set time and date to the person the written adisory is directed to-- thus giving reasonably beyond reasonable doubt belief 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. In certain circumstances, verbal communication from the assailant to the intended victim may be substituted if communicated in the presence of at least 2 other US citizens, and one court assigned county official. A simple verbal warning will not suffice. ("I'm going to kill your dumb unarmed ass, rape your wife and daughter, then steal everything not nailed down" is an example of communication not authorized or covered under this statute)
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 03-21-2012).]
I'm not surprised the discussion has somewhat switched focus. The incident as reported rather readily lends itself to a wider discussion....that and the facts surrounding the actual incident seem pretty clear cut. If you get a potential 19K people discussing any one issue, the discussion is more than likely going to expand beyond the original subject. I have no objection to "law abiding citizens" invoking the law as the situation dictates...however, I and it appears others are of the distinct opinion that this incident was not initiated by a law-abiding citizen. I am of the opinion that Florida's law has the potential of being cited as tacit justification for an action by an individual that goes well beyond the "spirit" of the law, if not the language of it.
A "stream of consciousness" conversation is healthy and usually enlightening for all involved....as long as it remains respectful and can be conducted without unnecessary rancor.
One can only hope.
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 03-21-2012).]
You haven't presented anything in this thread that is a compelling argument against the "shoot first" law, as you titled it.
You have presented one person who MISUSED the law. You presented a law enforcement community who did not enforce the misuse, and a prosecution system that didn't ensure it was enforced. You DID go on to question the value of the law as it is. You were presented with viewpoints as to why it is the way it is, that make it valuable and good.
You took the one incident and applied it to (accused? I can't fully tell) Florida's general population, and the United States at large.
This is a horrible incident. You sure seem to be looking HARD to blame SOMEthing. A bad law. Gun toting racists. A racist law enforcement doing selective prosecution.
Did you ever think maybe this is just one bad guy who abused the system, and some under zealous police who didn't call him on it?
Or is this really something on "all of us", including me sitting here in Wisconsin?
How would someone outside of my subconscious mind prove without a shadow of a doubt that I and I alone felt threatened? A psychological examination? Reading my personal diary? A Vulcan mindmeld??? That's the very loophole I referred to. Rather than word the law in a manner that leaves no room for ambiguity (for the sake and safety of the community overall), it simply passes the ball to the courts. It's almost as if the state was abdicating responsibility for creating the law by making it as vague as possible.
I'm not making light of this nor am I dismissing your opinion out of hand but I don't see how anyone could accomplish such a thing as to non-subjectively determine what was going on in someone else's mind at the time of any given event. That's my point in a nutshell. If laws are to carry any weight at all, they should reflect the" collective thoughts/morals/limitations/call them what you will" rather than any one individual's interpretation of the laws themselves. That should most certainly be the case in instances where a human life is at stake.
You're missing the point. The law can't know what is inside your mind. That's why it doesn't matter. The law is based on what a "reasonable person" would do. You might shoot a 6 month old baby because you were genuinely afraid for your life, but a resonable person wouldn't be, so self-defense isn't a valid defense. Is it reasonable to believe you were afraid. Not prove you WERE afraid, but only if a resonable person in a similar situation would be afraid.
That's also where the defense lawyer would do due diligence by giving you a psyche evaluation. If a reasonable person wouldn't think you were afraid (or that they would be in that situation) then you're an unreasonable person and the defense can try for an incompetence defense. Yes, you were truly afraid that 6 month old baby was going to beat you to death with a tire iron - beause your psyche evaluation suggests an irrational fear of infants and the defense would then enter a plea of not guilty by reason of mental incapacity/insanity.
It's not based on 1 person's interpretation of the laws. It's based on a jury of your peers' interpretation of the law. That's the foundation of our entire legal system.
This is an emotinal "hot button" incident that makes looking at the law dispassionately very difficult, but that's exactly what you have to do.
You haven't presented anything in this thread that is a compelling argument against the "shoot first" law, as you titled it.
You have presented one person who MISUSED the law. You presented a law enforcement community who did not enforce the misuse, and a prosecution system that didn't ensure it was enforced. You DID go on to question the value of the law as it is. You were presented with viewpoints as to why it is the way it is, that make it valuable and good.
You took the one incident and applied it to (accused? I can't fully tell) Florida's general population, and the United States at large.
This is a horrible incident. You sure seem to be looking HARD to blame SOMEthing. A bad law. Gun toting racists. A racist law enforcement doing selective prosecution.
Did you ever think maybe this is just one bad guy who abused the system, and some under zealous police who didn't call him on it?
Or is this really something on "all of us", including me sitting here in Wisconsin?
There are at present 30-odd states who hold similar statutes on their books. I'm not looking for any one individual or group of individuals to blame for this incident (though it appears there's certainly enough to go around) nor did I bring the subject of the "Shoot First" law into play. In fact, I didn't coin it....people in Florida did. Nor did I initiate the injection of Florida's law into the discussion. Every article I've read recently cited the law as a possible predicating factor in the incident.
My concern is the wider ramifications of the law as presently written and whether this sort of incident could be repeated in other municipalities. Yes, I have used one case to investigate the possibilities and to discuss the issue because it's a case that seems to be the subject of quite a bit of discussion, not only on PFF but across the nation. I do in fact think this was A guy that abused the system but who's to say he's not simply the FIRST that will choose to do so? If indeed more than half of the country has similar laws on the books and they read anywhere near as ambiguously as the Florida statute does, it is indeed a national issue IMO. To make this simply a racial issue between two people in Sanford, Florida is to overlook the broader implications of such a law, though there are certainly such aspects to this particular incident. Take it a step beyond the obvious.......What would stop your neighbor from using the law against you?
Whether or not the state of Wisconsin views this as something they need to be bothered with or concerned about is a decision you and your fellow residents of the state can address.
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 03-21-2012).]
You're missing the point. The law can't know what is inside your mind. That's why it doesn't matter. The law is based on what a "reasonable person" would do. You might shoot a 6 month old baby because you were genuinely afraid for your life, but a resonable person wouldn't be, so self-defense isn't a valid defense. Is it reasonable to believe you were afraid. Not prove you WERE afraid, but only if a resonable person in a similar situation would be afraid.
That's also where the defense lawyer would do due diligence by giving you a psyche evaluation. If a reasonable person wouldn't think you were afraid (or that they would be in that situation) then you're an unreasonable person and the defense can try for an incompetence defense. Yes, you were truly afraid that 6 month old baby was going to beat you to death with a tire iron - because your psyche evaluation suggests an irrational fear of infants and the defense would then enter a plea of not guilty by reason of mental incapacity/insanity.
It's not based on 1 person's interpretation of the laws. It's based on a jury of your peers' interpretation of the law. That's the foundation of our entire legal system.
This is an emotional "hot button" incident that makes looking at the law dispassionately very difficult, but that's exactly what you have to do.
In a broad pragmatic sense, I agree with you. In a more philosophical and socially applicable sense, I question the wisdom of a law impacting the taking of a life that, as written, leaves so much to simple interpretation.
Believe it or not, I do respect your opinion...and value the opportunity to discuss an issue with you on this level.
I can't speak for other states, but when I took my CCW class in NC, they spelled out very clearly that seeking a confrontation like that is illegal and NOT justification for use of deadly force.
Missouri is the same way. I just recently took the class and received my CCW yesterday as a matter of fact.
Not only can you NOT be the starter the confrontation, if you are approached by the "bad person" and you pull your gun, then either he(she) runs away, or you shoot and miss, you CAN NOT chase him(her) down. If you catch him(her) it creates a "NEW" confrontation thet YOU started.
As I see it, the guy messed up following the kid and never should have got out of his vehicle. The police were coming, well sooner or later.
There are at present 30-odd states who hold similar statutes on their books.
Whether or not the state of Wisconsin views this as something they need to be bothered with or concerned about is a decision you and your fellow residents of the state can address.
We just passed a "castle law" in Wisconsin.
A biracial (half white, half black) 20 year old was hiding on a man's porch from police after fleeing an underaged drinking party at 2 a.m. He shot him, and the young man was killed. By all accounts he wasn't trying to get in the house. The homeowner did not know that. And did not know he was just hiding from police.
Racism? Would he have shot if he was all white and not just half?
More than half the states now have laws like this.
Here are two instances where the law was misused.
Tragic. But two in a country of 300 million.
You question the wisdom of a law that leaves so much to interpretation.
You don't question the deterrent effect and number of home invasions, or robberies this has stopped. You don't question the number of people not killed by criminals due to this. Your alternatives are to have laws where the burden of proof is on the one doing the shooting, which renders the person extremely vulnerable in a truly dangerous situation, and hesitant to defend one's self.
Is that your preference? Do you not question the wisdom of putting a law abiding citizen in that situation? EITHER way, the court is going to HAVE to use judgement. This just sets which person in the situation gets the "benefit of the doubt". It does NOT give them free license.
Neither law is "perfect". It will largely get down to the USE of the law by the police and prosecuters that determine how close to perfect they can get.
I just spoke to one of our clients about this. He's a prosecutor here in Miami and his wife, an attorney, was present, as well. First off, they personally despise the "stand your ground" law as a matter of legal principle.
They also said that things could go either way in this case and that it would really depend on the racial makeup of the grand jury. If it was mostly white, nothing would happen. They also are of the opinion that central Florida is a cesspool of racism with a terrible history of racially biased police and justice work.
I just thought an opinion from someone inside the legal system in Florida may be interesting to this discussion.
In a broad pragmatic sense, I agree with you. In a more philosophical and socially applicable sense, I question the wisdom of a law impacting the taking of a life that, as written, leaves so much to simple interpretation.
Believe it or not, I do respect your opinion...and value the opportunity to discuss an issue with you on this level.
How the law is written would have no bearing on the taking of a life. Even as the law is written, it would have no bearing on Zimmerman's punishment had the police and prosecution done their job. The law is open to interpretation either way - proof of being in fear of your life or proof of not being in fear of your life. Regardless who bears the burden of proof, it's still up to the same interpretation.
I don't think it's the law's fault. I think someone murdered someone, and that it was absolutely motivated by race. This should be taken to trial and a judge should see it. I see no reason why the current law shouldn't have him in jail.
"Confronting" anyone is does not in any way forfiet your right to self defense.
That will depend on your local laws and the definition of "confronting." As I posted earlier, in NC if you start a fight and later find yourself losing the fight and in fear for your life, it doesn't matter. The fact that you initiated the conflict means you do NOT have a right to use lethal force to defend yourself.
So the next question would be what type of confrontation crosses that line. Walking up and asking someone a question? Verbal abuse? Do you have to throw the first punch? Those are the questions the trail would have to answer, but if it is shown you started the altercation, you cannot use self-defense as your defense in a shooting. At least in NC.
I don't think it's the law's fault. I think someone murdered someone, and that it was absolutely motivated by race. This should be taken to trial and a judge should see it. I see no reason why the current law shouldn't have him in jail.
I hear a lot of people say definitively that this was motivated by race. What make you think so besides what the usual race baters say? What piece of evidence that could be admissible in court says this was motivated by race?
Originally posted by Doug85GT: I hear a lot of people say definitively that this was motivated by race. What make you think so besides what the usual race baters say? What piece of evidence that could be admissible in court says this was motivated by race?
Use your head, man. He kept calling police on people in his neighborhood. They were all Black. The dude held different standards for different races. Would it hold up in court? Maybe not. But the guy was racially driven.
This was forwarded to me this evening. It would appear there have been quite a few cases since 2005 when the law was enacted in which the shooter claimed the "Stand Your Ground" law as justification for the shooting.
The following was lifted from the story from the Tampa Bay Times. Again, I did not write this.
"The Florida Legislature passed the law in 2005 at the behest of the National Rifle Association but over the staunch objections of law enforcement. The law allows the use of deadly force when a person is in a place he has a right to be and feels reasonably threatened with serious harm. Opponents dubbed it the "shoot first" law because people have no duty to attempt to retreat from a threat of violence even if they could do so safely. History has borne them out.
Since the law went into effect, reports of justifiable homicides have tripled, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. It has been used to absolve violence resulting from road rage, barroom arguments and even a gang gunfight. In 2008, two gangs in Tallahassee got into a shootout where a 15-year-old boy was killed. The charges were dismissed by a judge citing the "stand your ground" law."
Use your head, man. He kept calling police on people in his neighborhood. They were all Black. The dude held different standards for different races. Would it hold up in court? Maybe not. But the guy was racially driven.
What you are saying is not in any of the news stories I have read. Could you point me in the right direction?
Originally posted by Doug85GT: I hear a lot of people say definitively that this was motivated by race. What make you think so besides what the usual race baters say? What piece of evidence that could be admissible in court says this was motivated by race?
I've been looking for transcripts of the 911 call made by Zimmerman but they haven't been released publicly yet. According to the Martin legal team, they will be available online within the next 72 hours. Allegedly, there were racial slurs made by Zimmerman while he was talking to the police dispatcher. We'll see for certain when the transcripts are released. If they exist, I would imagine that would satisfy your desire for in-court admissibility.
In the interim, you may find this of interest.....a view of the incident from an Hispanic POV. http://latino.foxnews.com/l...immermans-not-white/ I don't know if the writer's one of "the usual race baiters".
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 03-21-2012).]
Originally posted by Doug85GT: What you are saying is not in any of the news stories I have read. Could you point me in the right direction?
I heard it on Fox News radio this morning on KZNN (I've only ever heard Fox news on this station so I don't know if they are with those numbers or what).
This was forwarded to me this evening. It would appear there have been quite a few cases since 2005 when the law was enacted in which the shooter claimed the "Stand Your Ground" law as justification for the shooting.
The following was lifted from the story from the Tampa Bay Times. Again, I did not write this.
"The Florida Legislature passed the law in 2005 at the behest of the National Rifle Association but over the staunch objections of law enforcement. The law allows the use of deadly force when a person is in a place he has a right to be and feels reasonably threatened with serious harm. Opponents dubbed it the "shoot first" law because people have no duty to attempt to retreat from a threat of violence even if they could do so safely. History has borne them out.
Since the law went into effect, reports of justifiable homicides have tripled, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. It has been used to absolve violence resulting from road rage, barroom arguments and even a gang gunfight. In 2008, two gangs in Tallahassee got into a shootout where a 15-year-old boy was killed. The charges were dismissed by a judge citing the "stand your ground" law."
Without researching each of those cases, not to mention the many ones before the "stand your ground" law went into effect, how does this suggest something is wrong? So justifiable homicides went up. That seems damning on the surface, but compared to what? The only difference in the law is before you had a duty to retreat and now you don't. If you shot someone you had to prove you did everything in your power to get away, even if you were where you were supposed to be, in your car, at the super market, walking down the sidewalk, etc. In essence, if you are attacked and someone tries to kill you and you manage to kill them first, the burden of proof was on you to prove you didn't do anything to provoke it and tried to avoid it. The flip side is this could mean there are a great many people who defended themselves in good faith while truly afraid for their lives sitting behind bars now because they were involved in their incident before the law was passed. Without careful examination of all of the case there's no way to tell.
I don't want to minimize this particular case, but citing these examples and statistics just stirs up emotion to prove your case - that the incident was racially motivated and the "stand your ground" law is to blame. Opponents of the law call it the "shoot first" law, and all you're doing is reporting on that particular side of the story.
Imagine if rape laws were worded such that a rape victim had to prove she didn't "ask for it" and made every effort to get away. As I've seen the news, anytime those types of arguments are brought up, they're blasted as being hateful and abusive to women and a reason the rape laws MUST be changed so that the rape victim isn't again victimized by the court system.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 03-21-2012).]
Zimmerman is just the tip of the major problem here. Notice how law enforcement didn't investigate. If a dog was shoot you'd have everybody screaming to lock Zimmerman up and throw away the key. However, because the kid was Black law enforcement was hoping it all gets swept under the rug. Plain and simple it's corruption at it's worst from the top down. Nothing new here.
In the interim, you may find this of interest.....a view of the incident from an Hispanic POV. http://latino.foxnews.com/l...immermans-not-white/ I don't know if the writer's one of "the usual race baiters".
I grew up (12-18 yrs) in Colombia and married into a latino family (my wife is half white, quarter black and quarter Chinese) and based on that experience I can assure you that Latinos are VERY much racist, especially against blacks.
This is nothing new here in Florida as far as racism is concerned between hispanics and blacks and unless some thing is done about it the possibility exists of a big race war down the road.From the early 80's there has been a rash of killing of young black men by hispanic law enforcement officers and all was cleared and called "justified killing.
Since last year there has been a resurgence of killing of 7 black men by a department run by an hispanic chief that was deemed as "justified killing" Zimmermand also said " they get away wit it all the time" he did it thinking just another one of them.
This is very sad and our law makers are also to blame for Trayvon's death .
[This message has been edited by Boogaloo (edited 03-22-2012).]
Police complete their investigation, turning the case over to the State Attorney's Office for the 18th Circuit. A spokeswoman promises "a through, deliberate and just review."
Having read parts of this thread and not all the posts I am just going to say this and be done with it because I feel this was a racially motivated shooting from what I have read and seen in the news. Now I don’t care what color a person is I have many friends of all colors, black, white, red, yellow and every other color of the rainbow. I don’t treat anyone any differently because of the color of their skin and have invited people here from this forum to my home not know what color they were and don’t care, hell I have a godson who is half black and half white,
But from what this is about the shooter was not white, he was a Spanish speaking man, so he wasn’t white.
But that isn’t the problem he was a racist as many people still are, if the boy was white wearing a hoody chances are he would have done the same thing. But that is just my opinion. No one can tell for sure because all the media accounts have been colored in their own ways. May have been a bad choice of words.
The man was told by police not to get out of his car, he did, the man followed the kid, he shouldn’t have, and the man shot the kid. Those facts we are sure of, what happened after that is just conjecture on everyone’s part. It was a tragic thing that happened, no matter who did what.
Was it justified or not is now up to the grand jury to decide and depending on who is sitting on that is going to make a difference in if the shooter is charged with anything or what.
For all of you people that say there was no investigation, look at Neptune's link:
From the link:
[QUOTE] March 13
Police complete their investigation, turning the case over to the State Attorney's Office for the 18th Circuit. A spokeswoman promises "a through, deliberate and just review."
I (as would quite a few others) question some of the statements as laid out in the article as they contradict the statements of Martin's family, the police department records and those submitted to the city.
(1) According to Martin's parents, three days passed before they found out where he was or what happened to him. They add that the Sanford police had Martin's cellphone yet never bothered to use it to attempt to determine his identity. A regular police investigatory procedure would be to call the most recent number on the phone and ask the person who owned the phone. The parents claim they didn't find out about the shooting until they exhausted the hospital search and finally called the police department themselves.
(2) The case was turned over to the State Attorney's office only after external pressure insisted it be looked into. That pressure came not only from the community at large but also from the mayor and city manager's offices. The police department had indeed "completed their investigation" and had determined that Zimmerman's account was accurate....despite the fact that no other accounts from witnesses had been been taken under consideration. For example, Zimmerman initially told police that he was "running back to his truck" when he was attacked by Martin. However the location of the body and the 911 calls from other witnesses made that an impossibility. He soon altered his version of events. This was revealed by testimony by the officer assigned to question to Zimmerman at the time of the shooting before the City Council last night. In fact, one paramount witness had not even been thoroughly questioned....the one who called 911 and reported the actual shooting....the call where you can clearly hear Martin in the background screaming for help. She's mentioned in the March 14th entry in the timeline.
(3) On March 2nd, the police department released a statement (signed by the police chief) that Zimmerman was (and I quote) "squeaky clean" with no prior police arrest record. Yet media investigation later revealed a history of arrests and encounters with law enforcement by Zimmerman dating back to 2005 or earlier. Allegedly, none of that was included in the police investigation.
There are other aspects of the police investigation that are in dispute by not only the public but also the city fathers. In fact, as a result of his mishandling of the case overall, the Sanford Board of Commissioners gave police chief Bill Lee a vote of "no confidence" by a 3-2 margin.....last night. It's likely he won't have the job for another week.
It's not a matter of whether or not there was an "investigation" but rather if the quality of said investigation was commiserate with the facts of the incident. It would appear, by any subjective interpretation, that they were not. You may note that the timeline is dated March 17th....five days ago. Quite a lot has been revealed about the case since then.
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 03-22-2012).]
I find that statement very wrong. Painting an entire racial group as racist when you don't know us all is just not right.
I happen to know relatives who are Latino and get along just fine with Blacks.
You're right. I meant that just being a minority yourself doesn't make you immune to being a racist. Not all Latinos are, of course, but I've witnessed many instances of it that shocked me in their brazenness.
Here's a rather interesting development in the case.
The law's sponsors are now saying Zimmerman should not be allowed to use it as a defense for the shooting.
"Former state Sen. Durell Peaden and current state Rep. Dennis Baxley said the law they wrote in 2005, which allows someone who feels threatened to "meet force with force" without backing down first, was being misapplied in the shooting death of the 17-year-old, the Miami Herald reported.
"They got the goods on him. They need to prosecute whoever shot the kid," Peaden, a Republican, told the Herald. "He has no protection under my law."
I (as would quite a few others) question some of the statements as laid out in the article as they contradict the statements of Martin's family, the police department records and those submitted to the city.
(1) According to Martin's parents, three days passed before they found out where he was or what happened to him. They add that the Sanford police had Martin's cellphone yet never bothered to use it to attempt to determine his identity. A regular police investigatory procedure would be to call the most recent number on the phone and ask the person who owned the phone. The parents claim they didn't find out about the shooting until they exhausted the hospital search and finally called the police department themselves.
(2) The case was turned over to the State Attorney's office only after external pressure insisted it be looked into. That pressure came not only from the community at large but also from the mayor and city manager's offices. The police department had indeed "completed their investigation" and had determined that Zimmerman's account was accurate....despite the fact that no other accounts from witnesses had been been taken under consideration. For example, Zimmerman initially told police that he was "running back to his truck" when he was attacked by Martin. However the location of the body and the 911 calls from other witnesses made that an impossibility. He soon altered his version of events. This was revealed by testimony by the officer assigned to question to Zimmerman at the time of the shooting before the City Council last night. In fact, one paramount witness had not even been thoroughly questioned....the one who called 911 and reported the actual shooting....the call where you can clearly hear Martin in the background screaming for help. She's mentioned in the March 14th entry in the timeline.
(3) On March 2nd, the police department released a statement (signed by the police chief) that Zimmerman was (and I quote) "squeaky clean" with no prior police arrest record. Yet media investigation later revealed a history of arrests and encounters with law enforcement by Zimmerman dating back to 2005 or earlier. Allegedly, none of that was included in the police investigation.
There are other aspects of the police investigation that are in dispute by not only the public but also the city fathers. In fact, as a result of his mishandling of the case overall, the Sanford Board of Commissioners gave police chief Bill Lee a vote of "no confidence" by a 3-2 margin.....last night. It's likely he won't have the job for another week.
It's not a matter of whether or not there was an "investigation" but rather if the quality of said investigation was commiserate with the facts of the incident. It would appear, by any subjective interpretation, that they were not. You may note that the timeline is dated March 17th....five days ago. Quite a lot has been revealed about the case since then.
It is not my article. If the Orlando Sentinel has something wrong, then I'm sure they will correct it if someone notifies them.
Another link straight from the horse's mouth that there IS a police investigation:
You may argue that the investigation is flawed, but the various people in this thread that claim there is NO investigation are clearly mistaken. Since no one knows what is in the police report, I think saying it is flawed is premature.
Frankly this whole case stinks of a lynch mob mentality. There is so much misinformation going around and people jumping to unsupported conclusions that it is scary. I blame the media sensationalization and the race baiters.
The final victim at the end of the day is going to be justice. Either all of the coverage is going to poison the jury pool and railroad Zimmerman into a more severe conviction than he deserves; or it will make it impossible to find competent jurors because everyone will be too tainted by all of the misinformation in the media that he will walk with no punishment. IMO he deserves manslaughter, no more, no less. We will see where the scales of "justice" fall at the end of this mess.
Originally posted by Doug85GT: It is not my article. If the Orlando Sentinel has something wrong, then I'm sure they will correct it if someone notifies them.
Another link straight from the horse's mouth that there IS a police investigation:
You may argue that the investigation is flawed, but the various people in this thread that claim there is NO investigation are clearly mistaken. Since no one knows what is in the police report, I think saying it is flawed is premature.
Frankly this whole case stinks of a lynch mob mentality. There is so much misinformation going around and people jumping to unsupported conclusions that it is scary. I blame the media sensationalization and the race baiters.
The final victim at the end of the day is going to be justice. Either all of the coverage is going to poison the jury pool and railroad Zimmerman into a more severe conviction than he deserves; or it will make it impossible to find competent jurors because everyone will be too tainted by all of the misinformation in the media that he will walk with no punishment. IMO he deserves manslaughter, no more, no less. We will see where the scales of "justice" fall at the end of this mess.
For Pete's sake, man... No one said you wrote the timeline. The Orlando Sentinel logo is highly prominent on the top.
Also, once again, it's not a matter of dispute whether or not there was a police investigation....rather it's the quality of it that's in question.
Whether he gets a manslaughter charge thrown at him depends solely on whether the grand jury believes in light of the evidence presented that the killing was accidental or at the very least careless. If they feel there was any evidence of intent (and his exiting the vehicle in pursuit of the victim may play a part in that determination), then he's likely looking at a 2nd degree murder charge (the difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder being simply "in cold blood or hot blood.") Simply stated, careless, accidental killing is 'manslaughter' rather than 'murder'.
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 03-22-2012).]
Here's a rather interesting development in the case.
The law's sponsors are now saying Zimmerman should not be allowed to use it as a defense for the shooting.
"Former state Sen. Durell Peaden and current state Rep. Dennis Baxley said the law they wrote in 2005, which allows someone who feels threatened to "meet force with force" without backing down first, was being misapplied in the shooting death of the 17-year-old, the Miami Herald reported.
"They got the goods on him. They need to prosecute whoever shot the kid," Peaden, a Republican, told the Herald. "He has no protection under my law."
For Pete's sake, man... No one said you wrote the timeline. The Orlando Sentinel logo is highly prominent on the top.
Also, once again, it's not a matter of dispute whether or not there was a police investigation....rather it's the quality of it that's in question.
Whether he gets a manslaughter charge thrown at him depends solely on whether the grand jury believes in light of the evidence presented that the killing was accidental or at the very least careless. If they feel there was any evidence of intent (and his exiting the vehicle in pursuit of the victim may play a part in that determination), then he's likely looking at a 2nd degree murder charge (the difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder being simply "in cold blood or hot blood.") Simply stated, careless, accidental killing is 'manslaughter' rather than 'murder'.
I can count two posts in this thread where someone said there was no investigation. If a pole was taken country wide, what do you think would be the percentage of people that think there was no investigation?
Exiting the vehicle and questioning Martin does not show intent to kill. It show he intended to get out of the vehicle and question Martin.
If they do show intent to kill, then it will be a Murder 1 charge, not 2.
