Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Giz

Not at all. I was pointing out that other reports painted a different picture.

Other reports that don't seem to exist?
Use the history on your browser, it will tell you where yo went.

Quote:

All along I have said that either side might have been at fault and that the shooting may or may not have been justified but, on the information available, we just don't know.

YOU seem to be unwilling to go beyond "Zimmerman bad". Well, maybe he is, maybe he isn't - I am fair minded enough to say that I don't know, rather than forming an internet lynch mob.

And where did I say that, hmmm?

Is this some amazing mentalist trick?


I did not say Zimmerman was bad, as I recall I stated he engaged in an extrajudicial action.

So where did I make these statements that you are alleging.

In some article that you can't cite?

ETA: I just reviewed my posts, I think yo statement is false and based upon mistaken identity.

The most un neutral thing I said was that Zimmerman was a vigilante.

[Giz]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

I did not say Zimmerman was bad, as I recall I stated he engaged in an extrajudicial action.

And there it is. I have said that it might, or might not, have been a justified shooting. Everything that you have said paints it as being unjustified - when the information isn't available to determine that.

Oh boy, I hope you are never a juror. Ready to convict, facts be damned.

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by Giz

And there it is. I have said that it might, or might not, have been a justified shooting. Everything that you have said paints it as being unjustified - when the information isn't available to determine that.

Oh boy, I hope you are never a juror. Ready to convict, facts be damned.

Huh?
I don't agree with DD usually, but his choice of wording is absolutely correct in this case
"Extrajudicial" means outside the court/legal system. Even self-defense is extrajudicial--you are acting as judge, jury, and executioner based on circumstances of the moment.
It may come to pass that the extrajudicial action was justified, or not. That will happen within the system, in due course of time.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

How to get "justice"

Yep, threaten until you get an answer you like...

Maybe they'd settle for a lynching?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Giz

And there it is. I have said that it might, or might not, have been a justified shooting. Everything that you have said paints it as being unjustified - when the information isn't available to determine that.

Oh boy, I hope you are never a juror. Ready to convict, facts be damned.

How is that a condemnation?

Seriously, what dictionary are you using? Never have I said that it may not qualify as self defense.

You are really a hoot!

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extrajudicial

Quote:

Definition of EXTRAJUDICIAL
1a : not forming a valid part of regular legal proceedings <an extrajudicial investigation> b : delivered without legal authority : private 2a(2) <the judge's extrajudicial statements>
2: done in contravention of due process of law <an extrajudicial execution>

: done in contravention of due process of law

So due process did not occur, there was an action bt citizen that was extrajudicial. It may be that charges are never pressed, it may be that he is never brought to trial, he may be found innocent if he does have atrial.

And you have quite an imagination!

[Giz]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Seriously, what dictionary are you using? Never have I said that it may not qualify as self defense.

You are really a hoot!

Ahem, "I do not think that itw as a case of racism by the police, but a vigilante acting on his own , shot a citizen. "

Remember that?

[Checkmite]

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Giz

Ahem, "I do not think that itw as a case of racism by the police, but a vigilante acting on his own , shot a citizen. "

Remember that?

A vigilante (which a member of a neighborhood watch is in the sense that they are there to report crimes), acting on their own (which they were), shot a citizen (which they admitted to doing).

How is this a condemnation of Zimmerman, it is a statement?

http://education.yahoo.com/reference...ntry/vigilante

Quote:

vig·i·lan·te
NOUN:
1. One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.
2. A member of a vigilance committee.
ETYMOLOGY:
Spanish, watchman, vigilante, from Latin vigilns, vigilant- present participle of vigilre, to be watchful, from vigil, watchful; see weg- in Indo-European roots

So this is not always a condemnation, if the court decides that the action was taken in self defense.

Now I am also someone conversant is español and so I may not always use in terms of a vigilante committee, which is definitely and always extrajudicial, often and mostly illegal. And certainly I did not intend it as always meaning an illegal act.

I was thinking of it in the sense of a guard, which comes from the italian guardare (to look at). Perhaps learning spanish in my youth and italian in college is confusing. And they we have vigilante from the latin (which fortunately I don't speak) as vigilis urbani, who were tasked with watching for fires, runaway slaves and burglaries.

[Bikewer]

"neighborhood watch” programs are in place all over the country. It's "observe and report", not armed patrol and confrontation.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

"neighborhood watch” programs are in place all over the country. It's "observe and report", not armed patrol and confrontation.

That's a big part of my problem with the situation. It's easy to keep interjecting about how the details of the scuffle itself are unknown; but some details of the larger situation are known. And among them are the fact that Zimmerman stopped being a "neighborhood watch captain" the moment he stepped out of his car with a gun and set off in pursuit of Martin. At that point he was some guy who made a decision to take a gun and confront a kid who hadn't done anything. The last decision we know for certain that Martin made was to walk home. Only one of these people had the free opportunity to prevent this tragedy before it began.

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

I'm not sure how to get to "in a gang" and "kicked out of school" from this.

The ultimate source for this kind of thing:
P ulled
O ut
O f
P osterior

[crimresearch]

More things to make you go Hmmm...

According to the National Sheriffs Association handbook, official members of Neighborhood Watch
should be reporting to the Watch Coordinator... a Captain would not be someone in charge. They are also say this about patrols:

Quote:

Patrol members should be trained by law enforcement. It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles. They should also be cautioned to alert police or deputies when encountering strange activity. MEMBERS SHOULD NEVER CONFRONT SUSPICOUS PERSONS WHO COULD BE ARMED AND DANGEROUS.

This is repeated under patrol procedures, where it sets up a minimum of 2 persons per patrol.

This lends credence to the media's calling Zimmerman 'self appointed'... In other words, unless the property owner had him authorized and licensed to work armed security, he was a loose cannon.

Speaking of which , not only does he have a documented history of violent run ins with the police (the dropped charges turn out to have been dropped after completing a diversionary program), but he has a history of violent encounters from rushing in while 'working security' before.
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/witnes...slaying/nLSqk/

Something's missing at one end or the other of this.

[Jonnyclueless]

Self appointed could just mean that he volunteered as opposed to be elected. So many assumptions by people.

History of violent run ins? He was punched while trying to break up a fight, he was robbed at gun point. Wow, what a menace. We might want to consider locking up people who are robbed at gun point and get their jaw broken trying to break up fights. Those damn violent victims.

[Moss]

Small question regarding self defense in US law: I think here(Germany) you need to prove self defense beyond doubt to get the charges for the violence needed to repell the unlawful attack dropped. Unless you do get the sentence accorded to violent action used. (E. g. manslaughter)
Do I understand it correctly that in the U. S. law enforcement has to gather evidence to build a case that it was not self defense before the person using violence can be charged?

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

Self appointed could just mean that he volunteered as opposed to be elected. So many assumptions by people.

History of violent run ins? He was punched while trying to break up a fight, he was robbed at gun point. Wow, what a menace. We might want to consider locking up people who are robbed at gun point and get their jaw broken trying to break up fights. Those damn violent victims.

How about we lock up people who shoot unarmed kids to death for trying to get home on a rainy night? Is that too ridiculous as well?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

How about we lock up people who shoot unarmed kids to death for trying to get home on a rainy night? Is that too ridiculous as well?

Look it was too people who had a confrontation that resulted in one of their deaths, not something illegal that the police need to be all that concerned about. I am sure if the guy was killed by the kid nothing would happen either, after all he was a creep stalking you with a gun.

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by Moss

Small question regarding self defense in US law: I think here(Germany) you need to prove self defense beyond doubt to get the charges for the violence needed to repell the unlawful attack dropped. Unless you do get the sentence accorded to violent action used. (E. g. manslaughter)
Do I understand it correctly that in the U. S. law enforcement has to gather evidence to build a case that it was not self defense before the person using violence can be charged?

In the US, you are considered innocent until proven guilty, and this presumption is very strong.

The charges usually will not be brought at all, unless the case is reasonably strong, and the prosecutor thinks there is a good chance at conviction.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

How to get "justice"

Yep, threaten until you get an answer you like...

This is really beginning to bother me. Once race becomes a matter, there is no winning. There are marches and rallies going on, demanding an arrest. I have nothing against demanding further investigation but demanding an arrest when there is not enough evidence is not how our justice system works.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Moss

Small question regarding self defense in US law: I think here(Germany) you need to prove self defense beyond doubt to get the charges for the violence needed to repell the unlawful attack dropped. Unless you do get the sentence accorded to violent action used. (E. g. manslaughter)
Do I understand it correctly that in the U. S. law enforcement has to gather evidence to build a case that it was not self defense before the person using violence can be charged?

Yes, here you are presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

[tyr_13]

I also like how people keep throwing out 'with a gun' as if the unfortunate teenager had some psychic ability to know the guy behind him is packing, or that the older guy was waving the gun and running after him screaming. Either of those possibilities is reasonably unlikely given the information we have.

For someone to be concerned about 'a white guy chasing him with a gun', they have to actually suspect that the person has a gun. It doesn't appear it was presented until well into the confrontation.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

In the US, you are considered innocent until proven guilty, and this presumption is very strong.

But that no longer applies here; the killer freely admits to being the killer.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

But that no longer applies here; the killer freely admits to being the killer.

Yes but the question is, can the investigators prove that it wasn't justifiable homicide? Until they can, he is not guilty in the eyes of the law (which doesn't translate to innocent).

[Checkmite]

They can prove it was homicide. That should be enough for a trial. Let a jury decide whether it was "justifiable".

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

They can prove it was homicide. That should be enough for a trial. Let a jury decide whether it was "justifiable".

That's up to the jurisdiction's prosecutor and that's always a subjective call especially in a volatile political situation like this one.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

They can prove it was homicide. That should be enough for a trial. Let a jury decide whether it was "justifiable".

Homicide is merely the act of one person killing another. It is not illegal, in and of itself. Quite honestly, I think this state learned it's lesson with Casey Anthony. It doesn't matter how guilty a person looks. All they have is what the police saw when they arrived on the scene; one man, clearly physically assaulted and his assailant is dead. We know for a fact that Zimmerman was following Martin, we know for a fact that Zimmerman approached Martin, the evidence to counter a justifiable homicide, those moments between the approach and the shot, is unknown and pure speculation. It would not hold up in court.

[Checkmite]

It is not pure speculation; there are witnesses to the fight, and at least one of them places both combatants on the ground separated from each other before the shot was fired. Another one claims to have heard the boy calling for help prior to the shot as well.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

Self appointed could just mean that he volunteered as opposed to be elected. So many assumptions by people.

History of violent run ins? He was punched while trying to break up a fight, he was robbed at gun point. Wow, what a menace. We might want to consider locking up people who are robbed at gun point and get their jaw broken trying to break up fights. Those damn violent victims.

You live up to your name. Neighborhood Watch groups are neither paid jobs nor elected government positions. Everybody is a volunteer. Not everybody is a 'Captain' driving around alone with a gun confronting people.

They are organized under the National Sheriffs Association.The structure goes from a liason with law enforcement to a Watch Coordinator down to block captains who keep phone lists and distribute information for groups of 10 to 15 houses.

Something about the details as reported by the media so far, isn't adding up. Like where is his security license to be breaking up fights, much less his armed security license?

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Moss

Small question regarding self defense in US law: I think here(Germany) you need to prove self defense beyond doubt to get the charges for the violence needed to repell the unlawful attack dropped. Unless you do get the sentence accorded to violent action used. (E. g. manslaughter)
Do I understand it correctly that in the U. S. law enforcement has to gather evidence to build a case that it was not self defense before the person using violence can be charged?

The government (law enforcement and the prosecutor's office) must build a case that a crime has been committed and that a certain person violated the law.

Then the prosecutor has to clear a threshold of getting that person charged.

Then a court decides whether the presumption of innocence remains intact, or whether the government has proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Along the way, claims (accident, self-defense, insanity, someone else did it, etc.) can be made by the accused in their defense and those claims may or may not be accepted at any stage of the process.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

It is not pure speculation; there are witnesses to the fight, and at least one of them places both combatants on the ground separated from each other before the shot was fired.

And what does this information actually tell us? That at some point they were on the ground separated. How does this effect the claim of self defense? It doesn't one way or the other, besides supporting that there was indeed an altercation.

Quote:

Another one claims to have heard the boy calling for help prior to the shot as well.

And what does this tell us? How was the witness able to discern who was calling for help? It doesn't appear the witness saw the boy yelling, so it could have been the other guy yelling.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

But that no longer applies here; the killer freely admits to being the killer.

That applies up until the moment that a verdict is entered.

[Jonnyclueless]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

You live up to your name. Neighborhood Watch groups are neither paid jobs nor elected government positions. Everybody is a volunteer. Not everybody is a 'Captain' driving around alone with a gun confronting people.

They are organized under the National Sheriffs Association.The structure goes from a liason with law enforcement to a Watch Coordinator down to block captains who keep phone lists and distribute information for groups of 10 to 15 houses.

Something about the details as reported by the media so far, isn't adding up. Like where is his security license to be breaking up fights, much less his armed security license?

I think you're more deserving of my name from reading your posts. Who cares about a paid job? what does volunteering have to do with a paid job? What does it have to do with an elected position. I have a neighborhood watch. No one is paid, but people volunteer to do things. There's no captain, there's no national sheriffs association. You clearly don't have any idea of what you're talking about.

What's not adding up is that we lack information about what is going on, and some of us aren't making assumptions or throwing insults at others who aren't making stuff up like you are about this having to be paid to volunteer for your local neighborhood watch.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

This is really beginning to bother me. Once race becomes a matter, there is no winning. There are marches and rallies going on, demanding an arrest. I have nothing against demanding further investigation but demanding an arrest when there is not enough evidence is not how our justice system works.

Eaxctly

[Cainkane1]

I find it difficult to believe that a man with a gun said "Hey theres a black guy; I'm going to shoot him" I know it happens but there has to be more to this. Much more.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

It is not pure speculation; there are witnesses to the fight, and at least one of them places both combatants on the ground separated from each other before the shot was fired. Another one claims to have heard the boy calling for help prior to the shot as well.

And these are the things that have been turned over to the state attorney's office.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

I think you're more deserving of my name from reading your posts. Who cares about a paid job? what does volunteering have to do with a paid job? What does it have to do with an elected position. I have a neighborhood watch. No one is paid, but people volunteer to do things. There's no captain, there's no national sheriffs association. You clearly don't have any idea of what you're talking about.

What's not adding up is that we lack information about what is going on, and some of us aren't making assumptions or throwing insults at others who aren't making stuff up like you are about this having to be paid to volunteer for your local neighborhood watch.

You brought up 'elected' positions, then you claim you don't care about them before fabricating the strawman that I brought them up.
You have no clue what the requirements are for the officially recognized volunteer Neighborhood Watch program, and after they've been posted, you spin into denial.

Every post about this incident that I've made here has been clearly premised on the available minformation not adding up to a rational conclusion either way, so your claim to the contrary is a deliberate falsehood.
And your whining about being 'insulted' because reality doesn't match your imaginary expertise, does nothing to bolster credibility.

On the other hand, you have shown zero evidence to support your claim that I've been wrong in my posts, and you won't be able to produce any, either.
Go ahead, show everyone where I had no clue about innocent until proven guilty. Show everyone where I simply made up all of that about the Florida statutes, or how criminal prosecutions work. Show everyone where I faked the the links or quotes I posted.

Or keep up the disingenuous tap dancing, and prove yourself to be simply another troll projecting your own tactics onto others. Your choice.

If some homemade group isn't organized volunteers under the nationally recognized Neighborhood Watch program, then it is just a bunch of people calling themselves 'a neighborhood watch', which goes back to the points already made.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Something about the details as reported by the media so far, isn't adding up. Like where is his security license to be breaking up fights, much less his armed security license?

You know what else is missing? Support for your claim that an unpaid volunteer acting as a security guard needs a license.

I don't expect you will be presenting such evidence either.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by WildCat

You know what else is missing? Support for your claim that an unpaid volunteer acting as a security guard needs a license.

I don't expect you will be presenting such evidence either.

Awwww... The 'floating pristine bullet' expert weighs in.

The legal heavyweight who assured us that when federal law enforcement agents with badges, guns, and handcuffs lock someone up, and that person has to post bond with a federal judge before returning to be tried by that judge on charges of violating the law, that there is no presumption of innocence, because it's purely 'a civil matter'.

And now he's here to assure us that in Florida, there is no legal prohibition to a sovereign citizen running around with a gun protecting other people's property.

Specifically that there is no requirement that in order for the crime of trespass to have occured, a person be ordered off the property by the owner or an authorized person, not just a random self appointed 'captain'. These words in 810.09 simply don't exist because Wildcat says so.

Quote:

If the offender defies an order to leave, personally communicated to the offender by the owner of the premises or by an authorized person

And Zimmerman working security as the link I gave claims? But of course no one in Florida needs a license to work security... because *someone* tells us so.

Note that I never claimed that Zimmerman *was* working security in the current case, I asked why the media hadn't been able to find out if he was working as an authorized agent of the owner to protect the property, and if so, whether or not he was licensed.



http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/security/about.html
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/security/firearms.html

You know Wildcat, now that you've solved this case, you really need to start charging people for all your legal advice, I'm sure you can command every penny it is worth. Maybe you can even take up where Jerry Kane left off.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

That applies up until the moment that a verdict is entered.

Can't be a verdict if there's no trial.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Can't be a verdict if there's no trial.

Are you going for the obvious, or is 'up until' not a phrase you understand?

If there is no trial, then the person remains in the default status of 'presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law'.

Unless of course, you would care to produce some facts to the contrary?

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

And what does this information actually tell us? That at some point they were on the ground separated. How does this effect the claim of self defense? It doesn't one way or the other, besides supporting that there was indeed an altercation.

It raises the possibility that the killer might not have been in mortal fear of his life, but merely losing a fight that he clearly meant to participate in (if he didn't throw the first punch), which means he might not be able to justify using deadly force legally as self-defense.

Originally Posted by tyr_13

And what does this tell us? How was the witness able to discern who was calling for help? It doesn't appear the witness saw the boy yelling, so it could have been the other guy yelling.

Arguments for a jury to hear.