Unarmed teen shooting: Is Florida law to blame?

[kiki5711]

Code: Select all

[quote="Tyrannical"][quote="kiki5711"][quote="Seth"][quote="kiki5711"][quote="Tyrannical"]Remember, Trayvon was trespassing by cutting through people's yards. A gated community is private property and Trayvon was a guest. Trayvon had no right to break the law like that even though it was a minor offense, and Zimmerman as a property owner had every right to confront Trayvon over this.[/quote]


that's totally wrong.  he wasn't traspassing if he was a guest and probably even if he wasn't a guest.  AND HE WASNT CUTTING THROUGH peoples back yards.  there's a walkway between the yards that is clearly meant for humans to walk through, unless you feel it's only for their pets.

I live in several gated communities and sometimes I just like to jog, or walk through them looking at houses and their yards.

does that mean I'm staking out a house to Rob??????  And therefore I can be a suspicious person, maybe on drugs, up to no good???[/quote]

Yes. At least enough so that one is justified in viewing you with suspicion and keeping an eye on you if you're not recognized, and even approaching you to ask what you're doing there.[/quote]

But then again, I wouldn't be asked anything, would I? cuz I'm white.[/quote]

Statistically, how much more often is a young Black male to commit a burglary than what ever demographic you are in? If they are X times more likely to commit a crime, give them X times more scrutiny. Racial profiling is correct because it is statistically correct, and it also puts pressure on the group as a whole to adjust it's behavior.

the walkway martin was walking through was pretty well lit, he'd be a pretty stupid robber to make it so obvious. Wouldn't it be less suspicious if he stalked out the neighborhood in the daytime, looking less threatening?

[kiki5711]

also read this if you have not.

Stand Your Ground: Before Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, there was John McNeil:

http://www.republicmagazine.com/news/st ... cneil.html

[kiki5711]

or this:

http://manormaniac.blogspot.com/2012/03 ... -true.html

[kiki5711]

read this again.:

When it comes to affirmative defenses, a defendant cannot merely say "I acted in self-defense," "I have an alibi," or "I was insane at the time." Some minimum threshold of evidence must be presented in order to support the defense and require the government to rebut it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Here, the killing by George Zimmerman is conceded and admitted. To assert standard or statutory self-defense, he must offer some evidence beyond the mere assertion. The presumption of innocence and the government's burden to prove guilt and, in effect, rebut the defense beyond a reasonable doubt remains throughout. So how will that be determined here? In essence, the case will come down to a question as to what each "reasonably believed." If the proof should demonstrate that Trayvon was the first to strike Zimmerman, the question will be whether Trayvon reasonably believed that such force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself. The fact that he was being followed (or possibly chased) by a strange large man who did not identify himself will certainly be a substantial factor.

The same analysis will be necessary for Zimmerman's state of mind. Assuming that Trayvon was the attacker, did he reasonably believe that shooting Trayvon was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself? The extent of his actual injuries will be extremely relevant. Of course, he has an advantage here as the sole survivor, and his testimony on the subject must be weighed with that in mind. He has an obvious motive to lie. Of course, if the evidence reveals that Trayvon was not the aggressor and Zimmerman shot him nonetheless, the defense cannot prevail.

What I think poses the most difficult question is if both were in reasonable fear of the other. Suppose Trayvon did attack Zimmerman and was justified in doing so, because he reasonably believed that he was in danger. Then Zimmerman too, reasonably believed that he was in danger and responded by shooting Trayvon. The statute provides that justification "is not available to a person who initially provokes the use of force against himself unless the person has tried to escape or has indicated clearly to the other (in this case Trayvon) that he has no intention to use force. So the question will be whether Zimmerman was the initial aggressor and whether he ceased to be and made his intentions clear to Trayvon. There can be little doubt that Zimmerman set these events in motion, but it is obvious that the roles of aggressor and victim can change as circumstances change. Whether they did or did not here will depend on the facts as they are developed.

Thus, despite what has been reported regarding what led up to the confrontation, disposition will depend upon what actually happened at the moment of the confrontation as reasonably seen through the eyes of the two participants. Lurking in the background is the question of racial bias. It not only goes to the question of whether it should constitute a federal crime, but whether or not Mr. Zimmerman's racial views, if any, caused him to be suspicious, to follow Trayvon and ultimately decide to shoot him. The case is not easy, but it is now going to be tried in the justice system where it belongs -- not in the media.

[Warren Dew]

Having laws say who the police can arrest as opposed who the courts can convict is unusual to say the least. I assume its to stop someone being inconvienced for 24 hours by the police. However as I've said before your loss of liberty with the appropiate legal protection for 24 hours is small price to pay to ensure someone doesnt get away with a serious crime. I just don't associate being arrested with someone either losing reputation or actually being guilty of something merely that they are part of the investigation process. Most people who are arrested are never charged with anything which I really don't see a problem with

In the U.S., having an arrest record is a very big deal. Almost every employer here asks about arrests, not convictions.

[amused]

In the U.S., having an arrest record is a very big deal. Almost every employer here asks about arrests, not convictions.

I don't think that is accurate. Most employment forms ask only about felony convictions and explicitly exclude misdemeanors.

[Warren Dew]

Statistically, how much more often is a young Black male to commit a burglary than what ever demographic you are in? If they are X times more likely to commit a crime, give them X times more scrutiny. Racial profiling is correct because it is statistically correct, and it also puts pressure on the group as a whole to adjust it's behavior.

Groups are composed of individuals. Putting "pressure on the group" as you suggest would just mean misdirecting pressure to law abiding blacks that should be applied to the burglars.

Just think about it. Is a burglar going to be less likely to burgle because you're watching someone else of the same skin color instead of him? I doubt it. In the meantime, treating the honest black guy like a criminal just tends to alienate him from law abiding society, which if anything leads to more crime, not less.

[maiforpeace]

In the U.S., having an arrest record is a very big deal. Almost every employer here asks about arrests, not convictions.

I don't think that is accurate. Most employment forms ask only about felony convictions and explicitly exclude misdemeanors.

You are correct amused, it's not accurate. An employer cannot legally ask about arrests.

http://www.andersonbottrell.com/php/pag ... wchart.pdf

[Warren Dew]

Stand Your Ground: Before Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, there was John McNeil:

http://www.republicmagazine.com/news/st ... cneil.html

John McNeil - black - arrested a year after he shot someone.

George Zimmerman - hispanic - arrested two months after he shot someone.

Kiki, I take it you're agreeing with Tyrannical that the justice system needs to be harder on blacks?

[Warren Dew]

In the U.S., having an arrest record is a very big deal. Almost every employer here asks about arrests, not convictions.

I don't think that is accurate. Most employment forms ask only about felony convictions and explicitly exclude misdemeanors.

You are correct amused, it's not accurate. An employer cannot legally ask about arrests.

http://www.andersonbottrell.com/php/pag ... wchart.pdf

From the EEOC site:

There is no Federal law that clearly prohibits an employer from asking about arrest and conviction records.

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/inqu ... iction.cfm

It does say it's prohibited in some states.

I've seen a lot of employment application forms that asked about arrests.

[MrJonno]

In the U.S., having an arrest record is a very big deal. Almost every employer here asks about arrests, not convictions.

Never heard of an 'arrest' record does such a thing exist. It's certainly no business of any employer (in fact many older convinctions are considered cleared after a certain period and no one can ask about those either)

[Coito ergo sum]

In the U.S., having an arrest record is a very big deal. Almost every employer here asks about arrests, not convictions.

Never heard of an 'arrest' record does such a thing exist. It's certainly no business of any employer (in fact many older convinctions are considered cleared after a certain period and no one can ask about those either)

All arrests are public record, and yes, a background check will reveal arrests.

Generally speaking, an employer can ask about convictions, and can asks about arrests where prosecutions are pending. The laws vary somewhat from state to state, but generally arrests that end in acquittal or dropped charges are not required to be disclosed by the prospective employee.

Many jobs, however, are very related to a person's criminal history, such as banking and any job requiring the handling of money, for example. There are laws governing background checks at the federal and state level in the US. The main law in the US at the federal level governing background checks is the Fair Credit Reporting Act. If an employer runs a background check, they need your prior signed consent. If they make a decision against you based on the report, they have to notify you and you have certain rights in response to that notification.

[Coito ergo sum]

It probably doesn't matter what the criminal case determines, but the civil case needs to get the SYG laws repealed or highly restricted to where they can be applied. Any time pursue and confront is involved there should be a determination of willful intent to murder. IMO

The civil case can't repeal the SYG law or restrict it. That just isn't the role of a civil court. The trial court will apply the law as is. If there is an appeal, it may address the constitutionality of the law, but the law is plainly not unconstitutional, so the courts aren't going to overturn it.

[Coito ergo sum]

It probably doesn't matter what the criminal case determines, but the civil case needs to get the SYG laws repealed or highly restricted to where they can be applied. Any time pursue and confront is involved there should be a determination of willful intent to murder. IMO

The civil case can't repeal the SYG law or restrict it. That just isn't the role of a civil court. The trial court will apply the law as is. If there is an appeal, it may address the constitutionality of the law, but the law is plainly not unconstitutional, so the courts aren't going to overturn it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Remember, Trayvon was trespassing by cutting through people's yards. A gated community is private property and Trayvon was a guest. Trayvon had no right to break the law like that even though it was a minor offense, and Zimmerman as a property owner had every right to confront Trayvon over this.

that's totally wrong. he wasn't traspassing if he was a guest and probably even if he wasn't a guest. AND HE WASNT CUTTING THROUGH peoples back yards. there's a walkway between the yards that is clearly meant for humans to walk through, unless you feel it's only for their pets.

I live in several gated communities and sometimes I just like to jog, or walk through them looking at houses and their yards.

does that mean I'm staking out a house to Rob?????? And therefore I can be a suspicious person, maybe on drugs, up to no good???

Yes. At least enough so that one is justified in viewing you with suspicion and keeping an eye on you if you're not recognized, and even approaching you to ask what you're doing there.

One thing to point out, too, is that if Martin is out and about in public, it is not against the law for Zimmerman to ask him what he's doing there. It's not harassment. Anyone can ask me or you or anyone else what we or they are doing in a particular place. There is no requirement to provide an answer or acknowledge the inquiry at all. But, Zimmerman did not do anything wrong by approaching Martin and asking him what he was doing there.