Black teen shot and killed in gated community

[Diego]

Why would there be liability? According to the person whose post I was answering, the neighborhood watchman is supposed to follow suspicious people. And according to Contaminous, citizens are supposed to arrest someone when they're about to commit a crime. The police dispatcher could have simply said nothing. But he said we don't need for you to follow him.

Dispatcher says "follow them for us" = I wouldn't have been hurt if they didn't say that

Dispatcher says nothing = I wouldn't have been hurt if they had told me not to follow

Dispatcher says "don't follow" = No matter what choice he makes, any injuries he sustains are on him

They aren't giving out legally binding orders, they are removing themselves from any civil liability by saying don't follow -- that's what they are taught to do

As another poster says, it isn't rocket science

[Jeebus]

You keep shooting down your case. According to this, if Martin felt his life was in peril, he had the right to react with deadly force. Only Martin can't tell us how he felt his life was in peril because the other guy had a gun. Amazing how this irony keeps flying over your head.

Except there is no evidence to support your scenario. Following someone is not a scene where you can use deadly force. "Profiling" someone is not either.

But let's assume your scenario is correct, that Martin had the right to use deadly force (absolutely if he felt his life was in danger and needed to slam GZ's head into the ground to escape the deadly force, he had the right to use it).

OK, so Martin reacted with deadly force, and so did Zimmerman. Except Zimmerman is alive, and Martin is dead.

So they are both innocent?

OK, I agree.

[Contumacious]

So the people who thought George Zimmerman had committed a crime, could have arrested him?

Incorrect.

In Florida Citizens have the authority to arrest anyone who is committing, or is about to commit, a crime

Ripley v. State, 898 So.2d 1078 (Fla.App. 03/23/2005)

[1] IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2005

[Baltimatt]

Sybrina Fulton comes to Baltimore

As Trayvon Martin's mother stood at the altar of Baltimore's Empowerment Temple on Sunday, the Rev. Jamal-Harrison Bryant asked for anyone whose child had also been the victim of "senseless violence" to come forward. At least a dozen women and men assembled at Sybrina Fulton's feet before she stepped down to grab one of them. She squeezed the woman, patted her back and whispered in her ear. Then Fulton moved down the line, tightly embracing each mother, grandmother and father, each of them too familiar with loss, until she'd touched them all. Congregants erupted into deafening applause and brushed away tears.

Later in his sermon, Bryant addressed recent news reports that an autopsy revealed Martin had traces of marijuana in his system when he died. Bryant wondered why police would test Martin for drugs. And he wondered why the finding was important.

You really had to ask that? And doesn't the medical examiner do that, not the police?

[Daan]

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/05/18...meal-evidence/
Quote

Martin’s autopsy showed he was shot through the heart. Gunpowder burns around his chest wound, called “stippling,” suggest Zimmerman shot him no more than 18 inches away. The gun shot’s trajectory was horizontal.

End Quote


.

The "horizontal" trajectory through Martin's body (from autopsy report) should be an issue since, as it's been claimed, Zimmerman was on his back and Martin was on top punching away at Zimmerman's head. If Zimmerman fired while laying flat on his back at Martin straddling his body, one would expect the trajectory to be at a slight angle in Martin's body, not horizontal (front to back).

This, along with the reported statement by Zimmerman that Martin, after he was shot, "turned and fell face down on the ground" should raise a question. Were Martin and Zimmerman standing when the shot was fired?

There's been no report that I'm aware of that anyone witnessed the shot being fired. What IF Martin had gotten up off of Zimmerman and the two were standing face-to-face and Zimmerman simply shot Martin in the chest.

.

[Wizard777]

Wrong again.

Americans have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to bear ams to defend their lives;

While it may be true that GZ could not use his arm offensively to stop a property crime, I seriously doubt that a jury would convict him for defending HIS life or those a small children or elderly individuals while on patrol.

But a guy with a gun isn't the only person in the world with rights. Trayvon Martin also had rights and those rights were equal to George Zimmermans.

[Smokey 1]

But a guy with a gun isn't the only person in the world with rights. Trayvon Martin also had rights and those rights were equal to George Zimmermans.

TM didn't have a right to attack GZ.

[Rintrah]

Except there is no evidence to support your scenario. Following someone is not a scene where you can use deadly force. "Profiling" someone is not either.

But let's assume your scenario is correct, that Martin had the right to use deadly force (absolutely if he felt his life was in danger and needed to slam GZ's head into the ground to escape the deadly force, he had the right to use it).

The evidence supports my scenario more than the one Zimmerman presented, based on what they said on their respective phone calls leading up to the confrontation.

OK, so Martin reacted with deadly force, and so did Zimmerman. Except Zimmerman is alive, and Martin is dead.

Exactly. That's why I said somewhere near the beginning of this thread that the lesson to be learned is to always be carrying and to shoot first.

[jtowne-swim]

Wrong again.

Americans have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to bear ams to defend their lives;

While it may be true that GZ could not use his arm offensively to stop a property crime, I seriously doubt that a jury would convict him for defending HIS life or those a small children or elderly individuals while on patrol.

No the police who briefed them about the duties of a nieghborhood watch told them they may not carry on the job. Furthermore the HOA can be held liable in the death if he was carrying on the job and they permitted it. The HOA most likely told him this. If your supervisor or employer tells you not to carry on the job than you can not carry. Furthermore it is not an absolute right to carry wherever you want. You may not carry at a work place like a school, the white house, or other places of similar nature.

[Rintrah]

Incorrect.

In Florida Citizens have the authority to arrest anyone who is committing, or is about to commit, a crime

Ripley v. State, 898 So.2d 1078 (Fla.App. 03/23/2005)

[1] IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2005

Yes, if they thought Zimmerman broke the law then he was committing a crime every second he wasn't in jail.

And what does the law say about resisting a citizen who is trying to arrest you? Can you do that?

How about if I suspect my neighbor is about to do drugs in his house, can I raid his house and arrest him?

What does the law say about punishment for false arrests made by citizens who are not trained in the law?

[dialtone]

Incorrect.

In Florida Citizens have the authority to arrest anyone who is committing, or is about to commit, a crime
Ripley v. State, 898 So.2d 1078 (Fla.App. 03/23/2005)

[1] IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2005

~Minority Report~

[Rintrah]

Dispatcher says "follow them for us" = I wouldn't have been hurt if they didn't say that

Dispatcher says nothing = I wouldn't have been hurt if they had told me not to follow

Dispatcher says "don't follow" = No matter what choice he makes, any injuries he sustains are on him

They aren't giving out legally binding orders, they are removing themselves from any civil liability by saying don't follow -- that's what they are taught to do

As another poster says, it isn't rocket science

No, the injuries aren't on him according to the other poster, who said it was a neigborhood watchman's duty to follow suspicious people. In that case, if Trayvon got away and he did someone harm, Zimmerman could have sued the police for not letting him follow Martin. But the police dispatcher chose to tell Zimmerman they didn't want him following anyone.

[jtowne-swim]

TM didn't have a right to attack GZ.

There is no evidence it happened aside from the word of an accused person who seems to have his story "evolving"!

[Smokey 1]

There is no evidence it happened aside from the word of an accused person who seems to have his story "evolving"!

Actually there are a couple of witnesses that saw TM on top of GZ pounding him. The only "evolution" I am aware of is one of the witnesses modified his story from saying he heard GZ yelling to not being sure who it was. You can't just "wish away" evidence that doesn't fit your narrative.

Would you have the same opinion on this case if the races were reversed?

[Wizard777]

TM didn't have a right to attack GZ.

We don't know that was the case. I'm waiting to see what is on the club house video. I'm starting to think that is what is going to sink Zimmerman.

Also under Florida law the Initial Aggressor is defined as the person who provokes a use of force. Not the first person to use force. So if you came charging at me and I hit you. I have not attacked you. I have defended myself. In charging at me you provoked my use of force. Therefore you would be the initial aggressor.

[Smokey 1]

We don't know that was the case. I'm waiting to see what is on the club house video. I'm starting to think that is what is going to sink Zimmerman.

Also under Florida law the Initial Aggressor is defined as the person who provokes a use of force. Not the first person to use force. So if you came charging at me and I hit you. I have not attacked you. I have defended myself. In charging at me you provoked my use of force. Therefore you would be the initial aggressor.

Simply following a person is not being an initial aggressor.

[Wizard777]

HOA rules aren't laws

They would have told him the same thing whether he was armed/unarmed, neighborhood watch/not, man/woman, adult/juvenile...etc

All they are doing is managing their liability

They can't suggest he follow someone, lest they be liable for any injury he sustains

The suggestion is in no way legally binding upon him, it just takes away their liability

An ex-Navy Seal could call in about seeing a 10 year old looking in cars....he would be told the same thing

No they are not laws. But the HOA does have the right to prohibit Zimmerman from carry a weapon while patroling on thier property. As a volunteer for the HOA Zimmerman would be covered by Florida's take your gun to work law. That means the second Zimmerman set foot outside of his vehicle with his gun to perform neighborgood watch duties or functions. He violated the take your gun to work law. The gun must be kept in the vehicle and out of sight.

[Wizard777]

Simply following a person is not being an initial aggressor.

He was not simply following Trayvon. He was aggressively following him. If that caused Trayvon to fear for his safety. Then he would be entitled to use force against Zimmerman. Especially to prevent a forceable felony like robbery, rape or kidnapping. 9 times out of 10 a stranger following you is up to no good. The only one that was displaying known behaviors of a criminal was Zimmerman. Normal people do not agressively follow strangers like that.

[Wizard777]

Incorrect.

In Florida Citizens have the authority to arrest anyone who is committing, or is about to commit, a crime

Ripley v. State, 898 So.2d 1078 (Fla.App. 03/23/2005)

[1] IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2005

You don't want to go that route. You're begining to make a case for profiling. Florida has no statutes on citizens arrest. What Ripley establishes as a matter of case law is that a citizens arrest is the same as an officer making an arrest outside of his jurisdiction. So Zimmerman would need probable cause to stop Trayvon. Being a young black male isn't even reasonable suspicion.

[jtowne-swim]

Actually there are a couple of witnesses that saw TM on top of GZ pounding him. The only "evolution" I am aware of is one of the witnesses modified his story from saying he heard GZ yelling to not being sure who it was. You can't just "wish away" evidence that doesn't fit your narrative.

Would you have the same opinion on this case if the races were reversed?

Yes but none of them saw who attacked who. They simply saw a portion of the fight. If you saw the end of the preakness some years you would say a certian horse was winning all the time because they won in the end even though they may have been last out the gate. Just because at one point Trayvon was on top of the fight does not mean he threw the first point. His evolution includes him changing his estimation of Trayvons age from a teenager to closer to his own age. How much money he had in his bank account and now it seems he told the police a few different versions the night of!

Race has no factor in my opinion if Zimmerman was asian and Martin was american indian I would still have the same opinion. You can not pull a gun out in a situation like this and shot a minor when you followed him creating a hostile enviornment!