The Trayvon Martin Case

[melliedee]

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama spoke out Friday on the Trayvon Martin shooting for the first time, calling the incident a “tragedy” and invoking his own children.

“I can only imagine what these parents are going through,” the president said, adding that he couldn’t help but think about his daughters. “I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this.

“My main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin,” he added. “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon. I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves and we’re going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened.”

The president said he was pleased to hear that Florida Gov. Rick Scott has appointed a task force to look into the incident.

Read more here: President Obama: Trayvon Martin case a ‘tragedy’ - Breaking News - MiamiHerald.com

Task force? That's great, but why haven't they arrested the shooter yet? It is amazing to me that he has not been arrested given those 9-11 tapes.

[gingele]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Task force? That's great, but why haven't they arrested the shooter yet? It is amazing to me that he has not been arrested given those 9-11 tapes.

He hasn't been arrested because Florida state law essentially authorized him to shoot the kid.

You can thank the NRA lobby for initiating and Gov. Jeb Bush for signing into law Florida's "Stand Your Ground" legislation (which, by the way was strongly opposed but Florida law enforcement officers and prosecutors).

For a bit of insight into the Stand Your Ground law, here's this: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/03/21/do-stand-your-ground-laws-encourage-vigilantes/what-the-florida-stand-your-ground-law-says

Indeed, given the law’s authorization of the use of deadly force to protect other people and, as the law also provides, “to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony,” Florida’s law unambiguously authorizes people to pursue and confront others. Whatever the merits of standing your ground when personally threatened, Florida’s law goes much further and encourages vigilantism. It tells people, who today are increasingly likely to be carrying concealed weapons, that they can pretend to be police officers and use their guns to protect and serve the broader public.

Here's another great example of the outcome of this nasty bit of legislation:

Miami judge decides fatal stabbing was self-defense

Judge Beth Bloom threw out the murder charge against a man who chased a car burglar for more than a block and then stabbed him, killing him. . . .

Greyston Garcia was charged with second-degree murder in the slaying of Pedro Roteta, 26, whom he chased for more than a block before stabbing the man.

The case illustrates the difficulty police and prosecutors statewide have experienced since the 2005 law eliminated a citizen’s duty to retreat in the face of danger, putting the burden on a judge, not a jury, to decide whether the accused is immune from prosecution.

In Sanford, police have cited the Stand Your Ground law in their decision not to arrest a neighborhood watch volunteer in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, 17. A Seminole County grand jury will decide on whether the man who shot Trayvon, George Zimmerman, 28, should face homicide charges.

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by gingele

He hasn't been arrested because Florida state law essentially authorized him to do shoot the kid.

You can thank the NRA lobby for initiating and Gov. Jeb Bush for signing into law Florida's "Stand Your Ground" legislation.

I think these laws are hugely problematic, but even their creators are saying that the fact that the shooter was pursuing the victim means that he does not have the self-defense protection:

The Florida lawmakers who crafted the state's controversial "Stand Your Ground" law said neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman should be arrested for shooting and killing unarmed teen Trayvon Martin.

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."



Read more: Trayvon Martin case: Sponsors of Florida

They have more than enough for an indictment. What are they waiting for?

[bearcat]

Originally Posted by gingele

He hasn't been arrested because Florida state law essentially authorized him to shoot the kid.

You can thank the NRA lobby for initiating and Gov. Jeb Bush for signing into law Florida's "Stand Your Ground" legislation.

Here's another great example of the outcome of this nasty bit of legislation:

Miami judge decides fatal stabbing was self-defense



For a bit of insight into the Stand Your Ground law, here's this: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate...round-law-says

I am confused about the original intent of the Stand Your Ground legislation. If it was the keep citizens from "retreating" in the face of danger, it would also not seem to allow the victim to pursue their perpetrator. That is quite a stretch. I am not an attorney but I can't figure out how a judge would ever come up with that interpretation.

[gingele]

Originally Posted by melliedee

I think these laws are hugely problematic, but even their creators are saying that the fact that the shooter was pursuing the victim means that he does not have the self-defense protection:



They have more than enough for an indictment. What are they waiting for?

Who is "they"? If you mean the police, they are passing the buck. The police did not arrest Zimmerman, so the prosecutor doesn't have anything with which to bring charges. Instead, The matter is going to go before the grand jury, and then the grand jury will decide whether or not to bring charges.

Hot potato, anyone?

[gingele]

Originally Posted by bearcat

I am confused about the original intent of the Stand Your Ground legislation. If it was the keep citizens from "retreating" in the face of danger, it would also not seem to allow the victim to pursue their perpetrator. That is quite a stretch. I am not an attorney but I can't figure out how a judge would ever come up with that interpretation.

I'm not sure I understand your question. Can you rephrase it, please?

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by gingele

Who is "they"? If you mean the police, they are passing the buck. The police did not arrest Zimmerman, so the prosecutor doesn't have anything with which to bring charges. Instead, The matter is going to go before the grand jury, and then the grand jury will decide whether or not to bring charges.

Hot potato, anyone?

Yes, I mean the police. I don't understand why Zimmerman was not attested that night. So, is the only way to get an arrest now to wait for the grand jury? The police can't pick him up now in light of the girlfriend's statements and further examination of the 9-11 tapes?

Another detail that really bothers me is the fact that Trayvon's body was in the morgue for three days. Wouldn't it be standard procedure to attempt to identify someone who's been shot and killed? Couldn't they scroll through his numbers and look for a "mom" or "dad" once they realized he was just a kid? I don't understand this.

[bearcat]

Originally Posted by gingele

I'm not sure I understand your question. Can you rephrase it, please?

Stand Your Ground was enacted to allow potential victims the right to use deadly force when protecting themselves rather than having to retreat. That seems like simple self defense. The bill states that in the event of an attack the victim can use deadly force if "he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself, herself or another". Again, that sounds like simple self defense. I am not sure how a judge or DA can interpret that the language also allows the victim to pursue and confront their attacker. I just don't see how that law would apply to the case in Sanford. What am I missing?

[gingele]

Originally Posted by bearcat

Stand Your Ground was enacted to allow potential victims the right to use deadly force when protecting themselves rather than having to retreat. That seems like simple self defense. The bill states that in the event of an attack the victim can use deadly force if "he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself, herself or another". Again, that sounds like simple self defense. I am not sure how a judge or DA can interpret that the language also allows the victim to pursue and confront their attacker. I just don't see how that law would apply to the case in Sanford. What am I missing?

I think - if I understand your question - that what you are missing is the fact that the "Stand your Ground" law was NOT enacted to allow potential victims the right to use deadly force when protecting themselves or others while in their homes or workplaces - such laws already existed (see "Castle doctrine").

The "Stand your Ground" law allows individuals to use deadly force anywhere and at anytime that they "reasonably believe" that death or grave harm may come, and it isn't limited to actual victims. This is why people like Zimmerman aren't arrested when they chase down and kill someone like Trayvon Martin. It is codified, state-sanctioned vigilantism.

Originally Posted by melliedee

Yes, I mean the police. I don't understand why Zimmerman was not attested that night. So, is the only way to get an arrest now to wait for the grand jury? The police can't pick him up now in light of the girlfriend's statements and further examination of the 9-11 tapes?

Another detail that really bothers me is the fact that Trayvon's body was in the morgue for three days. Wouldn't it be standard procedure to attempt to identify someone who's been shot and killed? Couldn't they scroll through his numbers and look for a "mom" or "dad" once they realized he was just a kid? I don't understand this.

Zimmerman wasn't arrested because, apparently, the police bought his story that he was acting in self-defense. (Note that the Sanford, FL police chief has temporary "stepped down" in the wake of the outcry over the department's refusal to arrest Zimmerman - whatever that means). The prosecutors' office heard the police account of the events, and the prosecutor chose to turn the matter over to the grand jury rather than bring the charges themselves (also passing the buck, but not unusual).


The grand jury doesn't "arrest" people, by the way, the grand jury would bring the indictment against Zimmerman (i.e., the "charges" against him) following their own investigation of the matter.

[bearcat]

Originally Posted by gingele

I think - if I understand your question - that what you are missing is the fact that the "Stand your Ground" law was NOT enacted to allow potential victims the right to use deadly force when protecting themselves or others while in their homes or workplaces - such laws already existed (see "Castle doctrine").

The "Stand your Ground" law allows individuals to use deadly force anywhere and at anytime that they "reasonably believe" that death or grave harm may come, and it isn't limited to actual victims. This is why people like Zimmerman aren't arrested when they chase down and kill someone like Trayvon Martin. It is codified, state-sanctioned vigilantism.

Thanks, that is what I am missing. I am struggling to think of a legitimate example of why this law would be necessary if it is not a codification of self defense. I will need to go back and read some more.

I am so glad I didn't go to law school, I would have been eaten alive.

[gingele]

Originally Posted by bearcat

Thanks, that is what I am missing. I am struggling to think of a legitimate example of why this law would be necessary if it is not a codification of self defense. I will need to go back and read some more.

I am so glad I didn't go to law school, I would have been eaten alive.

I beg to differ.

[gingele]

Another "interesting" fact: in the seven years since the Stand Your Ground law became effective in Florida, justifiable homicides have increased threefold.

Source: Tally of "Stand Your Ground" cases rises as legislators rethink law

[melliedee]

LeBron James, Miami Heat put their hoods up to show support in Trayvon Martin case | Ball Don't Lie - Yahoo! Sports

[equinenut]

Originally Posted by gingele

The "Stand your Ground" law allows individuals to use deadly force anywhere and at anytime that they "reasonably believe" that death or grave harm may come, and it isn't limited to actual victims. This is why people like Zimmerman aren't arrested when they chase down and kill someone like Trayvon Martin. It is codified, state-sanctioned vigilantism.

Ironic, tragically that it was Trayvon who could reasonably believe he was in danger, as in being stalked by Zimmerman, but yet Trayvon was not the one who used deadly force. So who was standing his ground??

The GOP men may want to turn the clock back 50 years on the women in this country but the NRA apparently want to turn the clock back 120 years to the O.K. Corral. This is so messed up.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by gingele

Another "interesting" fact: in the seven years since the Stand Your Ground law became effective in Florida, justifiable homicides have increased threefold.

Source: Tally of "Stand Your Ground" cases rises as legislators rethink law

Yeah that also came up in this piece I read on the law and that case a couple o days back:

Does Florida law let killers go free? - CNN

Check this out:

The facts of this case show why the "stand your ground" law is so important. The law focuses on the subjective understanding of the shooter. Was his understanding of the situation "reasonable"? Ultimately, that would be a question for the jury to decide, but it still gives a lot of deference to the perpetrator of a violent act. The new law even allows a disproportionate response; if someone comes at you with a fist, you can reply with a gun.

Another case under litigation in Florida highlights the effect of the law. In September 2010, David James was playing basketball with his 8-year-old daughter on an outdoor court in Valrico. A boy was skateboarding on the court at the same time, and Trevor Dooley, a man who lived in the area, told the boy he shouldn't be skateboarding there. James stood up for the boy, and he and Dooley had a confrontation.

Dooley was carrying a gun and wound up shooting James dead. Dooley asserted that he felt threatened by James, and has asked that the case be dismissed before trial under the "stand your ground" law. (The judge will soon make a ruling.)

In both of these cases -- in the deaths of both James and Martin -- the legal defense for the shooters appears to rely almost completely on the "stand your ground" law. In the death of David James, prosecutors are doing their best against tough odds. In the death of Trayvon Martin, it's prosecutors who are taking the heat for failing, thus far, to bring any charges against George Zimmerman.