When "Neighborhood Watch" Gets Out of Hand

[bigrun]

Trayvon Martin: There are other issues.


Editor, Times-Dispatch:

The emphasis on race in the Trayvon Martin shooting has obscured two other issues. First, why has discussion of Florida's "stand your ground" law applied only to George Zimmerman? Martin also had a right to be in the gated complex. He wasn't looking in windows, hiding or moving surreptitiously, only returning with junk food from a convenience store.

Zimmerman chose to track him and if he were approaching Martin too closely or calling out, he likely made Martin feel threatened. The young man probably had no idea Zimmerman was a neighborhood watchman. He only knew someone was following him who could possibly harm him. Why did Martin not also have a right to stand his ground?

Which raises a second issue: Zimmerman had a permit to carry and most likely his gun was visible. Being armed, he probably felt safe disregarding the admonition not to follow Martin. If he hadn't been armed it's very possible he wouldn't have followed Martin.

Both issues raise the question whether Zimmerman's permit to carry and possession of the gun itself suggest to most that "stand your ground" applied to him rather than Martin. Is there a tendency to think someone legally armed is right and the unarmed individual is not? Why doesn't "stand your ground" apply equally to Martin?

[Honu]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Trayvon Martin: There are other issues.


Editor, Times-Dispatch:

He may have stood his ground, we have no idea if he did or not because he is not here to tell us.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

Would the bail hearing be the appropriate time for Z's lawyer to move that the case be dismissed under the "Stand Your Ground" law, or is that off the table at this time?

I would not rule out the possibility of bail in this case, but the question of Z's safety looms large, so it might be better for him to be in protective custody. I am sure he is totally sequestered wherever he is being held now.

This is not the hearing where Zimmerman's lawyer will ask to have the case dismissed. That will happen next month.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Trayvon Martin: There are other issues.


Editor, Times-Dispatch:

I think that is a valid point. Martin would certainly have a valid right to defend himself from some guy that is following him and coming towards him.

However, Zimmerman claims that Martin attacked him from behind while he was walking back to his car. If that is what happened, Martin could not argue that he was standing his ground.

Even if Martin was simply "standing his ground", at some point he is on top of Zimmerman pounding him in the face and banging his head against the pavement. At what point does Zimmerman have the right to use deadly force to save himself from death (plenty of people have died in fist fights) or great bodily harm, such as ending up in a coma from head injuries?

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Honu

He may have stood his ground, we have no idea if he did or not because he is not here to tell us.

That is an issue in any legal case where a life is lost. It certainly has not stopped prosecutions and convictions for murder. There are ways other than testimony to prove a case.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Honu

He may have stood his ground, we have no idea if he did or not because he is not here to tell us.

The forensic evidence of how close the gunshot was to Trayvon, if Trayvon's fingerprints are on the gun, if Trayvon has evidence of a fight on his person (Zimmerman's skin under fingernails, bruising, etc.) will help clear that up.

If evidence was even processed by the police department, which I understand is a concern here (although we don't know for sure, it's sealed).

There is evidence that Trayvon was on the phone with his girlfriend, worried that someone was following him and scaring him.

[bigrun]

Cosby: Trayvon Martin case about guns, not race


Actor and comedian Bill Cosby says the debate over the killing of Trayvon Martin by a neighborhood watch volunteer should be focused on guns, not race.

In an interview on CNN's "State of the Union" aired Sunday, Cosby said calling George Zimmerman a racist doesn't solve anything. Cosby says the bigger question is what Zimmerman was doing with a gun, and who taught him how to behave with it.

The shooting of the 17-year-old Martin on Feb. 26 has ignited a nationwide debate about race and self-defense.

Cosby said during the interview, which was taped Thursday afternoon, that he once owned a gun but no longer does. He says there is a need to get guns off the streets, and that people should be taught to use every possible alternative before shooting someone.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

The forensic evidence of how close the gunshot was to Trayvon, if Trayvon's fingerprints are on the gun, if Trayvon has evidence of a fight on his person (Zimmerman's skin under fingernails, bruising, etc.) will help clear that up.

If evidence was even processed by the police department, which I understand is a concern here (although we don't know for sure, it's sealed).

There is evidence that Trayvon was on the phone with his girlfriend, worried that someone was following him and scaring him.

I don't think anyone denies what you are saying. Martin was obviously concerned and/or worried as to why this stranger was following him. I don't think anyone would dispute that.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't think anyone denies what you are saying. Martin was obviously concerned and/or worried as to why this stranger was following him. I don't think anyone would dispute that.

Two guys standing their ground, with a gun involved. Now one's dead. As Big posted, "What's the real problem here?" America?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Two guys standing their ground, with a gun involved. Now one's dead. As Big posted, "What's the real problem here?" America?

With regard to guns, I think anyone's gut instinct (myself included), would be that people carrying concealed weapons is dangerous and that this would lead to more people getting killed. That seems like a reasonable hypothesis.

However, the evidence doesn't support that hypothesis. Quite to the contrary, all the evidence I have seen shows that there is less violent crime in states after they pass laws allowing people to start carrying concealed weapons. There will obviously be some unfortunate incidents such as this case. You can't make a decision based on one incident. You have to view the overall results of what happens when a state allows people to carry concealed weapons. I think the evidence shows that the overall results are positive (there are less deaths and less violent crimes).

If you have any evidence that shows the opposite, feel free to present it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

With regard to guns, I think anyone's gut instinct (myself included), would be that people carrying concealed weapons is dangerous and that this would lead to more people getting killed. That seems like a reasonable hypothesis.

However, the evidence doesn't support that hypothesis. Quite to the contrary, all the evidence I have seen shows that there is less violent crime in states after they pass laws allowing people to start carrying concealed weapons. There will obviously be some unfortunate incidents such as this case. You can't make a decision based on one incident. You have to view the overall results of what happens when a state allows people to carry concealed weapons. I think the evidence shows that the overall results are positive (there are less deaths and less violent crimes).

If you have any evidence that shows the opposite, feel free to present it.

criminals become emboldened when there is a populace unable to defend itself. one only need look at cities with strict gun laws to know that. law-abiding citizens are just that. gun laws don't make a criminal suddenly concern himself with following the laws of the land, but he knows those of us who have no desire to ever go to jail will follow them. and all that does is give him ready victims, who have only 911 as a recourse.
you can pass a million laws or more; that won't solve the problem of the occasional dumbass like zimmerman.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

criminals become emboldened when there is a populace unable to defend itself. one only need look at cities with strict gun laws to know that. law-abiding citizens are just that. gun laws don't make a criminal suddenly concern himself with following the laws of the land, but he knows those of us who have no desire to ever go to jail will follow them. and all that does is give him ready victims, who have only 911 as a recourse.
you can pass a million laws or more; that won't solve the problem of the occasional dumbass like zimmerman.

I agree with everything you said except for the part about Zimmerman. Based on everything I have heard so far, Zimmerman had done a good job helping to watch the neighborhood and keep the neighborhood safe for several years. This was an unfortunate incident. Hindsight is 20/20. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Neighborhood watch programs (formal and informal) work. They reduce crime.

I highly doubt Zimmerman intended to get into any type of physical altercation. I think there is a good chance that he never intended to get within 50 yards of Martin. But he lost him on foot and at some point I think he turned a corner and found himself in close proximity to Martin. It was probably a fluke thing. We don't know for sure what happened after that. Zimmerman claims they had words but then the words ended and he was walking back to his car when he was attacked from behind.

Hindsight is 20/20 but as I said before, I highly doubt Zimmerman had any plans of getting into close proximity with Martin. If he was just some type of vigilante, why did he even bother calling the police? If he thought he was just some tough guy, he would have probably just pulled up to Martin in his car and rolled down his window and asked, "Who are you and what are you doing in this neighborhood?" But he didn't do this. He called the police. I think the whole thing was an unfortunate incident. I wouldn't recommend following someone on foot because if you lose them there is always the chance that you could end up face to face with them after turning a corner. I don't think Zimmerman ever dreamed that he would be jumped from behind (if that is in fact what happened).

I'm sure Zimmerman had followed people hundreds of times over the years (while doing his informal neigborhood watches) without incident. This incident was an aberration.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You have to view the overall results of what happens when a state allows people to carry concealed weapons. I think the evidence shows that the overall results are positive (there are less deaths and less violent crimes).

If you have any evidence that shows the opposite, feel free to present it.

I agree that concealed carry states have less murder and violent crime once it becomes common there. But - the evidence to the contrary is countries that do not have a handgun/assault weapons available to the public culture (say, Canada or England), and those that do (us).

We murder each other with guns in the thousands compared to less than 100. Why does a 20-bullet clip for a handgun need to be legal here? You can still have gun ownership, but with hard restrictions and responsibilities. Trouble is, in America we think that violates our freedomz. The definition of "responsible gun laws" varies widely among Americans.

[GenuineRisk]

It's not exactly true that concealed-carry states saw a drop in crime. Some did, some didn't. And some non-concealed-carry states saw a drop in crime. This is a very good, and, I think, fair look at concealed carry:

Happiness Is a Worn Gun

If it doesn't link right, a google search of the title will take you to it.

[Antitrust32]

bond set at 150,000


I really doubt Zimmerman gets convicted of 2nd degree murder. I just dont see how that case will be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. They should have went with a lesser charge, because the man does deserve to spend a couple of years locked up.

I do not think Zimmerman set out to kill Martin. I also wouldnt be surprised if Martin began the physical altercation.. because many people in Martin's situation (being followed and harrassed by a stranger) would resort to a few punches. But you can not act like a wanna be cop and get away with ending a life unpunished. While I do not see 2nd degree murder, Zimmerman deserves a 3-5 year sentence IMO.

[bigrun]

This was posted at another forum...Is this in evidence of his head injuries?..or a photoshopped bit..jus askin..


[/quote]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

While I do not see 2nd degree murder, Zimmerman deserves a 3-5 year sentence IMO.

Based on what I saw in court this morning, he will walk. Prosecutors are idiots for using loaded words like "profiled" and "confronted" in the affidavit. Defense attorney looks like he's on the ball, and judge set remarkably low bail. Unless some really startling evidence is produced, he ultimately beats the rap.

As to what he "deserves," who can say; did think that his "apology" was self-serving, and I was really surprised that O'Mara let him get up there.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by bigrun

This was posted at another forum...Is this in evidence of his head injuries?..or a photoshopped bit..jus askin..

[/quote]

That picture must be forged because Danzig told me that there was no struggle. She had strong evidence too. Her evidence was that the funeral director (who works for the Martins) said that Trayvon had no bruises. LOL.

I'm sorry Danzig. I couldn't resist.

[Riot]

ABC must have a massive contact leaking information to them from inside the prosecutors office - they've had all the "good stuff" in this case. I wonder if the prosecutor will freak out about this new leak, especially after the case has been sealed by the judge?

That looks like real blood to me. But you see how the pattern is running down to the left and right of the back-top of the head? [although there appears to be two contusions in a linear fashion (like the edge of a curb?) ] - there is no blood smear.

If his head was "being beaten" against the concrete, how come none of the blood is smeared?

So, say it's real, his head was beaten against the concrete to get the two contusions - he must have immediately gotten up and regained the upper hand, because the blood is running down both sides, consistent with how he's sitting now: with his head up, facing downward a little.

If his head was beaten against the concrete to get that, then he immediately got up before he started bleeding from the wounds, because none of the blood is smeared (is there blood on the concrete at the scene?)

And if he was standing after the injury, the blood would have run straight down his collar. It appears the head was bent over, as the blood ran down the left and right sides from the wounds.

I wonder if he shot Trayvon while laying on his back with Trayvon on top, then pushed dead Trayvon off and immediately stood up. Could be.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

I wonder if he shot Trayvon while laying on his back with Trayvon on top, then pushed dead Trayvon off and immediately stood up. Could be.

Yes. I believe that is what the claim has been all along.