Racial Profiling and A Heartbreaking Tragedy.

reply to post by Xcathdra


You've made some great points in this thread but you are flat wrong in saying that Zimmerman was not the aggressor. Zimmerman admitted to following Martin (I know follow/pursuit - that's YOUR semantics) and Trayvon told his girlfriend he was being followed.

reply to post by Jaellma


That is my question and argument as well. In my state a person does not have a duty to retreat. However the law is very clear on how use of force works and the justifications involved. We use the castle doctrine with a modification that covers car jacking.

The only time deadly force is going to be sustained off of your own property is if you are defending yourself from an attack or are defending a 3rd party from an attack. If you are in your home or car the justification for use of force is automatically met the moment the criminal crosses the threshold.

I support states that have laws that allow people to stand their ground. It irritates me to no end that government continually passes laws intending to stop crime, when in fact it only increases it because criminals are just that - criminals.

I am not in favor of a law that Florida has. Texas also has a similar law in place. If people remember there was a guy who reported 2 people breaking into his neighbors house, who was on vacation. He shot the burglars as they were trying to flee the scene. Unless im missed something the shootings were sustained as valid.

We need common sense, not Wyatt Earp.

reply to post by Ameliaair


The secondary link I provided (2 youtube videos of 911 calls) has a comment near the bottom I think that states there is a link to the full non edited version. 911 tapes are a matter of public record unless something occurs on those tapes that can be used in court and the release of the tapes could damage a persons right to a fair trial.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
The stand your ground law doesn't apply.
He was told not to pursue the kid or at least that he didn't have to.
He chose to do that, he was the one looking for the confrontation not trying to avoid it.

The dispatcher is not a commissioned officer. The stand your ground law actually does apply. Some quick info for people who are are not familiar with reading statutes (not directed at you Gogo). You will find 2 key words that are important -

* - and
* - or

When a criminal statute is created, it includes the elements that must be met in order to violate that law. When those elements are being listed, you will see and / or. If the term "and" is used, it means every single element listed in that section must be met. If the term "or" is used, it means a person does not have to meet all elements in order to violate the law.

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

Key phrase is highlighted above.

That section is important because its what allowed Zimmerman to act - reasonable belief a crime has / is occuring.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
It's actually not a bad law. Likely that second case the guy won't be protected with it either.
There is a good case of the stand your ground law. SOURCE
In that case the boy did everything he could to avoid the bully and when the bully forced him into a confrontation he stabbed the bully and got away. Then he later wasn't charged due to SUG. It can be a good thing.

I agree about the law, however it does need to be more defined and less ambiguous. As far as the second case goes I believe it adds to the argument that the law needs to be refined.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Also here is an article where the author of the stand your ground law says "Zimmerman should probably be arrested for murder." SOURCE

edit on 22-3-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-3-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

The author of the bill can say that all he wants however it doesn't change the fact the law is flawed.

Also, food for thought - The author of the bill is going to defend himself in this incident and make the claim the law says the action is illegal. The authors law and the way its worded allowed a murder to occur, and to compound that the law protected the individual who committed the crime.

Of course the author of the bill is going to argue that point. How do you think its going to play out when the people focus their anger on the author for creating a bill that sanctioned a murder? He is going to be taken to task for sure.

Originally posted by KillerQueen
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

You've made some great points in this thread but you are flat wrong in saying that Zimmerman was not the aggressor. Zimmerman admitted to following Martin (I know follow/pursuit - that's YOUR semantics) and Trayvon told his girlfriend he was being followed.

The terms pursuing / following are not relevant to the situation, which is what I'm saying. The section of the law in my other posts deals with that issue by stating reasonable belief a crime is occurring, is about to occur or has already occurred.

The term reasonable belief is the standard that is applied.

* - Did Mr. Zimmerman know there was crime in the neighborhood? - Yes
* - Did Mr. Zimmerman observe the individual in a targeted crime area? - Yes
* - Did Mr. Zimmerman contact the police and request an officer to be sent? - Yes
* - Did Mr. Zimmerman think the individual was acting in a suspicious manner? - Yes
* - Did Mr. Zimmerman follow / pursue / stalk / belly crawl / float in an effort to keep the suspect in eyesight? Yes

Based on the totality of circumstances, Mr. Zimmerman can argue that he reasonably believed a crime will occur / is occurring / or just occurred.

The requirements for the law requires the individual who is operating under that law to be able to use his / her own standards in order to act, which is a huge problem.

An update -

Police chief in Trayvon Martin case to step down

Sanford, Fla., Police Chief Bill Lee is "temporarily" resigning amid widespread criticism of his department's handling of the Trayvon Martin case, he announced moments ago.

"My role as the leader of this agency has become a distraction for this organization," Lee said at a press conference Thursday afternoon. "It is apparent that my involvement in this matter is overshadowing the process. I have come to the decision that I must temporarily remove myself from the position of police chief of the city of Sanford."

Sanford City Manager Norton Bonaparte Jr. said in a letter released Wednesday evening that police were "prohibited" from arresting George Zimmerman, who had confessed to shooting Martin, "based on the facts and circumstances they had at the time." Zimmerman told local police he acted in self-defense.

click link for remainder of article.

reply to post by Ameliaair


What they did is tell you what you would hear. Then they let you hear it. Afterwards they praised you for hearing what they wanted you to hear. They also tell you how much smarter you are than them for hearing what they couldn't. Then they loop what they want you to hear. It is a form of programming.

Even the host of the Young Turks show admits he never heard it until someone else told him to hear it.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Im not sure what your suggesting here. Are you stating I am spinning / misleading people? Please clarify for me.

I was speaking about the media accounts I referred to earlier. I am not attempting to demean your efforts at all.

As far as your comment goes about Mr. Zimmerman being in jail until things can be sorted out is, respectfully, a movie effect.

Not everywhere. Where I'm located we take the person before a magistrate, He determines if there is enough evidence to press charges and submit them to the DA. The magistrate has the power to order a person held under secure or unsecured bond until the DA decides to drop the charges or there is an arraignment hearing.

At the end of those 24 hours if the individual is not charged with a crime, then he cannot be lawfully held in jail. You either charge him, or you release him.

Things are different from location to location. That is why I was asking. I've seen some people held up to 48 hours during investigative detention. In some states detention can be extended to as long as is necessary and prudent.

Again for civilians the 2 terms are pretty much one in the same.

Again, that is a matter of jurisdiction.

That is why I asked. I know what the rules are where I live. I don't know what they are in Florida. Unfortunately many things can vary from state to state and city to city. That tends to cloud opinions in these matters. So, I wanted to be sure of how things work there.

I know that if this happened in my department's jurisdiction Zimmerman would have been sitting in jail while the 911 tapes and witness statements were reviewed. He wouldn't have been home in less than 24 hours. He probably would have went to trial and been required to mount an affirmative defense.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by Ameliaair

 

What they did is tell you what you would hear. Then they let you hear it. Afterwards they praised you for hearing what they wanted you to hear. They also tell you how much smarter you are than them for hearing what they couldn't. Then they loop what they want you to hear. It is a form of programming.

Even the host of the Young Turks show admits he never heard it until someone else told him to hear it.

edit on 22-3-2012 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)

That doesn't explain why I heard it after finding the article about it before anyone even said what they heard. I clearly heard "f*cking coons" without the input of others. So no, it was not programming.

reply to post by Believer101


I don't hear it. It sounds like his voice, but it is too garbled. A lot of people hear coons. Other people hear other things. Like an EVP people hear what they want or nothing at all. Much of that comes from what they believe before hand.

You may not have been programmed by the Young Turks. I was just speaking to that one question directly. Our brains will pick up what we want to hear or expect to hear. It happens when reading as well. There are a number of chain e-mails and t-shirts that play off of this.

I've been following this on Talk Radio for over a week.

This kid was profiled - hunted down - and killed - - - by a "wannabe" vigilante.

His crime? Being black - - wearing a hoodie (in the rain) - - walking back from a convenience store.

This Zimmerman guy needs to be convicted for murder.

-------------------------------------------------------

The really sad part - - - there have been many other happenings like this - - - around the same area - - - that did not get national attention.

Originally posted by Evolutionsend
Yes because clubbing the kid to death would've been much more civilized. A killer decides to kill, the weapon doesn't.

Nonsense.

As I've previously stated, I highly doubt that the accused would have had - if you'll pardon my French - the balls to club this poor lad to death in cold blood.

Instead, he uses the coward's option: the gun. Any pussy can kill or seriously injure someone else from 50 yards. It's slightly different up close and personal.

Wow, amazing that Zimmerman would dare claim defense and that ANYONE would actually believe any of it.

Yeah they have a stand your ground law allowing lethal force if threatened. He was not standing his ground which both his 911 call and the kids girlfriend can confirm. By all rights if Trayvon killed Zimmerman it would have been perfectly legal because he was being stalked by a larger older man.

If by some small chance he actually did attack Zimmerman because he was finally scared into fight or flight mode he had every right. Zimmerman was the clear aggresor in the situation and should be behind bars period.

I don't understand how any intelligent person would consider that there was not enough evidence to move forward even ignoring the possible racial implications.

Originally posted by seeker1977
Wow, amazing that Zimmerman would dare claim defense and that ANYONE would actually believe any of it.

But - this isn't the first and only happening like this. There have been many.

So many - - the police don't even bother to investigate anymore.

This would just be another case - - if the parents didn't reach out to the media - - and get national attention.

I've been following it on Talk Radio. Callers who live in or near the area - - say it is very Republican area - - and they are in no way surprised a black teen was targeted for just walking.

They say this may blow open a Whole Can of Worms. Stay tuned.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
I was speaking about the media accounts I referred to earlier. I am not attempting to demean your efforts at all.

Cool... Why I asked. The media is distorting information and its being done because they are not understanding how Florida law works.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
Not everywhere. Where I'm located we take the person before a magistrate, He determines if there is enough evidence to press charges and submit them to the DA. The magistrate has the power to order a person held under secure or unsecured bond until the DA decides to drop the charges or there is an arraignment hearing.

Are you in the states? Here, the PA has a certain amount of time in order to file charges, and that is based off of the report law enforcement submits within the time. 24 to 72 hours is the norm most states have established in terms of how long an individual can be held without charges. After that they are either charged or they must be released. The states with the longer detention time do come under criticism simply because of the length without charges.

If no charges are filed then there is no appearence in front of a judge.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
Things are different from location to location. That is why I was asking. I've seen some people held up to 48 hours during investigative detention. In some states detention can be extended to as long as is necessary and prudent.

The last part concerns me. Can you give me an example where length is neccissary and prudent? The US Supreme Court has ruled on that specific issue. The only agency im aware of that can detain for longer times is the FBI and only if its terror related and even then, the longer the detention goes the more pressure there is to either charge or release. The courts get hinkey acting when detention without charges starts ticking upwards.

Also just to clarify the reason im asking for the detention example is aside from the FBI its a new one to me if its being used by locla agencies. Local agencies are subject to State standards and not federal (unless its a supreme court ruling that specifically comes from the state level or affects them, which in that case it does not).

Originally posted by MikeNice81
Again, that is a matter of jurisdiction.

In the case of Florida, specifically with the topic, there is no difference between pursue / follow / etc. The reason its irrelevant is because nothing in the law in question does not specifically address that issue. It instead places the burden of justification on the civilian who is using force. That justification falls under part B of the law, where reasonable belief comes into play.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
That is why I asked. I know what the rules are where I live. I don't know what they are in Florida. Unfortunately many things can vary from state to state and city to city. That tends to cloud opinions in these matters. So, I wanted to be sure of how things work there.

when it comes to use of dealy force its going to be pretty standard across the nation since the Us Supreme Court has established the guidelines starting with Tennessee vs. Garner up to the present day.

the standard for Law Enforcements use of force is a lot more restricted simply because of the training law enforcement goes through. The standards for civilians use of force is a lower burden taking into account the relative lack of knowledge /training.

Its one of the reasons the castle doctrine was limited to just the house or car jacking. Its also why most states self defense laws requires the person the disengage from the situation unless there is no avenue of escape, in which case deadly force standards are met.

The Florida Law is so vague that it is essentially state sanctioned murder. Placing the standard to justify on the civilian with no mechanisms in place to challenge the civilians actions is problematic, as we are seeing.


Tennessee v. Garner
I know that if this happened in my department's jurisdiction Zimmerman would have been sitting in jail while the 911 tapes and witness statements were reviewed. He wouldn't have been home in less than 24 hours. He probably would have went to trial and been required to mount an affirmative defense.


The initial detention is the PC hold here in the states. If the PA does not file charges then the individual cannot be held past the PC hold timeline. As far as the 911 tapes and all the other info goes there is no guarantee it will even be allowed as evidence in court. Defense will file their discovery motion and will then challenge evidence that is suspect.

Long story short, Floridas law needs to be refined to close the loophole that is present.

reply to post by Annee


Politics has nothing to do with the Judicial system and anyone who thinks otherwise should probably go back and learn how our government works - respectfully.

A person cannot be charged with a crime if the law in quesiton is not violated, regardless of loudly people scream and demand it. The law that allowed Mr. Zimmerman to go down this course of action is the same law that protects his actions.

Any change in that law will not apply to zimmerman or this case as it would be illegal.

To bring everyone up to date with the latest news.

The Police chief has temporarily stepped down (reported yesterday).
Today the States Attorney (Prosecuting Attorney for the county this occured in) has also temporarily stepped down.

In this case stepped down = recused themselves from being involved in any way shape or form with the investigation / prosecution of this incident. They did not quit, they just remvoed themselves from the mess.

The Govenor has went ahead and appointed a special prosecutor to review the facts and go from there.

What needs to occur now is the legislature needs to clarify the law in question to prvent this from ever happening again.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Sir or Madame -

If you look a few pages back where I clearly detail the florida law that is been "used" you will see that it is ineffective in this case.

You will see that the police or (Narcotics officer) that was sent accepted his "self defense" and twisted the words of the law so that they would not have to arrest him.

As you seem to be an intelligent person , could you please explain to me HOW this law legally can even be used by zimmerman?

Originally posted by femalepharoe

could you please explain to me HOW this law legally can even be used by zimmerman?

I believe Zimmerman knew Florida's law well and knew exactly what to tell the officers who responded so he would not be charged using Florida's 'stand your ground law.'

I live in Florida and wasn't aware who open ended the law is. Some sort of change in the law will happen as a result. It is a shame that it took an incident like this to shed light on the flawed wording of the law.

However if Zimmerman does go to trial, would a jury/judge's decision set the precedent on how the law in interrupted?

reply to post by jrod


Yes Jrod I understand that.

(sidenote - I love how any guy whose name begins with a J will ultimately became "Jrod" )

But we keep talking about media manipulation. shucks! the law states that you can only "stand your ground" if someone is attacking you in a place you have a right to be in, is breaking into a car/house/or dwelling, or if you have "reason to believe" they are in the act or have just committed a crime.

---The only way Trayvon applies to this is that Zimmerman may have BELIEVED he had committed a crime. But once the police got there it was up to them to ask "why did you believe he had committed a crime" - a competent police officer would dismiss "because he was wearing a hoodie in the rain" as legit.

It also says you forfeit to "stand your ground" IF the person is not the aggresor as has the right to be where they are , and are "standing their ground" against you.

I honestly don't know why this law keeps getting pushed as the sorce of the confusion when it obviously DOES NOT APPLY.

So I just came across this article about the woman who set up the Neighborhood Watch group in this community.

Last August, Wendy Dorival got a call about setting up a local neighborhood watch. As the volunteer coordinator for the Police Department here, she gets such calls regularly, and the city already had at least 10 active watch groups. So she thought nothing of this call, from George Zimmerman.

She set up a visit for the next month at the Retreat at Twin Lakes, a gated community that had been dealing with a string of burglaries. When 25 residents showed up, a decent turnout, she had the residents introduce themselves; after all, people join the groups to look out for each other. She then gave a PowerPoint presentation and distributed a handbook. As she always does, she emphasized what a neighborhood watch is — and what it is not.

In every presentation, “I go through what the rules and responsibilities are,” she said Thursday. The volunteers’ role, she said, is “being the eyes and ears” for the police, “not the vigilante.” Members of a neighborhood watch “are not supposed to confront anyone,” she said. “We get paid to get into harm’s way. You don’t do that. You just call them from the safety of your home or your vehicle.”

Using a gun in the neighborhood watch role would be out of the question, she said in an interview.

So, he completely went against what the neighborhood watch program by confronting Martin and by carrying a gun.

In Sanford, she said, watch groups are not even supposed to make the rounds. That is the job of another kind of volunteer organization, Citizens on Patrol, whose members are selected and trained by the police and who drive the streets in a specially marked vehicle. Members of that group, Ms. Dorival said, “are armed only with a radio.”

A wide range of neighborhood watch organizations exist across the country. Some have patrols, while others like Sanford’s do not. But the National Sheriffs’ Association, which sponsors the program nationwide, is absolutely clear on one point: guns have no place in a watch group. A manual distributed by the association repeatedly underscores the point: “Patrol members do not carry weapons.”

This is the biggest thing for me. The fact that Zimmerman was carrying a gun on him, making "rounds" as a self-appointed captain. You don't do that in a watch group. You're strictly the eyes and ears of your community, not a self-appointed police officer.

[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46830953/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/?ocid=todmsnbc11#.T2yUwsWPVvA]Source You can read the entire article there.