Trayvon Martin, by Michael Davis – Straight No Chaser #261 | @MDWorld
March 22, 2012 Michael Davis 2 Comments
Comments
Martha Thomases March 23, 2012 - 3:07 am
Love you
Kathy March 23, 2012 - 3:36 am
This whole thing makes me sick. That gun toting fat sack of crap with a penchant for calling the cops needs to be charged with murder and thrown in jail.
Russ Rogers March 23, 2012 - 8:05 am
I have a very similar photo up as my profile photo on facebook. Wearing a hoodie is a not a crime. Neither is liking Ice Tea or Skittles. Taste the Rainbow Coalition!
I can’t say if Mr. Zimmerman deserves to go to jail. But he deserved to be detained and thoroughly questioned. His gun needed to be taken in for evidence. The police needed to do a better job of securing the scene and interviewing witnesses. I can’t believe that police would come upon the scene where someone was shot and killed and just take the shooters word for what happened and then let them walk away from the scene WITH the gun! That’s absolute gross incompetence on the part of the police.
Mr. Zimmerman is simply using a horrible law to his advantage. The police aren’t incompetent — they’re their to enforce the laws that are on the books. Almost half of the states in the Union have this law or something quite similar. These laws can be used for self-defense, and they can be used for lynching.
It’s not difficult to find white people who are scared of black kids in hoodies, particularly in cracker states like Florida. Amusingly, there is a case in Florida right now where a black guy shot a white kid “in self-defense.” This claim may or may not be true, but the black guy is in jail.
There are two of these cases in Florida alone every week.
If it were a policeman who shot anybody, there would be an investigation and chances are likely that the officer would be relieved of his gun and assigned desk duty until a determination has been made as to what actually happened (your local police rules may vary). It seems hard to believe that Mr. Martin was provoking an incident, but at the very least an investigation should have happened immediately and Mr. Zimmerman should have been relieved of his weapon until the investigation concluded.
As for Zimmerman being guilty of murder… that seems equally unlikely. Manslaughter would seem the more appropriate change, given what we know of the situation.
Malcolm Robertson March 23, 2012 - 11:20 am
Just because Zimmerman cites the law does not mean that he’s protected by it. Every bit of evidence I’ve seen so far tells me that he “Stand Your Ground” doesn’t apply to this case. Zimmerman pursued a man trying to get away from him. The sponsor of the legislation has gone on record that this law does not seem to apply to this killing. Even had Martin truly been up to no good, Zimmerman still pursued and forced a confrontation.
If I were the prosecutor, I’d also be very interested in where the guy received his CCW instruction as that could easily hang him as well. I’ve been through the classes required by two different states, as well as training provided by the nation’s leading expert on civilian use of lethal force. If those classes were anywhere near similar to what Florida requires, all a good prosecutor would need to do is show that this man ignored everything he was taught on the legal and ethical implications of shooting.
What I find interesting is that since “Stand Your Ground” was passed, the Brady Campaign called it the “Shoot First Law” and said that it allowed indiscriminate killing in the streets. They even advertised on billboards informing tourists to avoid Floridians because they could legally kill anyone if they felt like it. I’m wondering if this guy didn’t get his information from those billboards.
Assuming there’s no information that exonerates Zimmerman forthcoming, I hope they try, and execute the bastard.
Malcolm, of course this guy is protected by this wretched law. Given the way it is written, the burden of proof is on law enforcement to show he didn’t fire in self-defense. Zimmerman doesn’t have to prove a thing; no exoneration is necessary. That’s the law. It’s just another sophisticated method for lynching.
And when it comes to these laws, Florida is by no means alone here.
Mind you, we do not know the facts of the situation. But no matter what, I wouldn’t hold my breath until Zimmerman’s execution. They’d have to go beyond racism (and, by the way, agism) to prove malice aforethought.
Malcolm Robertson March 23, 2012 - 4:19 pm
Mike,
The relevant portion of the statute reads:
“A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Moreover, if a person uses deadly force and invokes the law, a police agency “may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.”
From everything I’ve read, it seems that the police had probable cause to arrest George Zimmerman. I can think of four things off the top of my head that give probable cause.
1. Zimmerman called 911 and was told to stay where he was. Instead he utters what many describe as a racial epithet and pursues.
2. During the 911 call there is a cry for help that is identified as Martin by his father.
3. The story given by Martin’s girlfriend who was on the phone with him when he realized that he has being followed.
4. George Zimmerman had 75-100lbs on Trayvon Martin, and there was no evidence of the latter carrying a weapon. This is key, because it speaks to justification for using deadly force. If there was disparity of force present in a self-defense situation, it would be on Zimmerman’s side, and thus deprive him of the justification to employ deadly force.
Castle law or not, the police have enough probable cause to at least make an arrest. The only thing that makes me pause and wonder if we’re not getting the whole story is the fact that they haven’t yet.
Rick Oliver March 23, 2012 - 4:25 pm
The Florida CCW law is very loose. Completion of an NRA hunter safety course is sufficient to get a CCW permit Furthermore, you don’t need a CCW permit to take advantage of the Florida “stand your ground law”. Zimmerman could have been carrying a handgun is plain sight for which you don’t need a permit of any kind in Florida, let alone any training. One of Martin’s relatives said something like “You can’t take the law into your own hands.” But as Mike already pointed out, that’s pretty much what “stand your ground” laws allow you to do.
Malcolm Robertson March 23, 2012 - 4:35 pm
I just read an article by Jennifer Granholm where she lists five points that are scarily similar to my four. I never thought I’d see the day where I agree with her on anything…
MOTU March 23, 2012 - 5:01 pm
The police let Zimmerman go based on nothing more than his word. There was a dead kid in the street yet they let him go WITH gun.
I KNOW I’d be at LEAST brought down for ‘questioning’ if I shot someone I didn’t know who was in my HOME.
Something I look forward to doing if some motherfucker DARES to come into my home uninvited.
The kid was WALKING home. He had EVERY right to be where he was-he was profiled and now he’s DEAD. Zimmerman should be UNDER the fucking jail.
Malcolm Robertson March 23, 2012 - 8:39 pm
An blog piece about some unanswered questions in the case:
The author, Massad Ayoob, has literally debriefed hundreds (maybe even thousands) of gunfight survivors. He’s also been an expert witness in several high profile cases, and has assisted the FBI in training. He is the expert I referred to in an earlier post. Anyone active the firearms community is likely familiar him. I point out his qualifications so people will know that this man knows his shit, and isn’t some redneck spouting off.
One of the things he notes:
“Both men, according to initial reports, were “squeaky clean” in terms of their background. We now know, meh, not so much. There were allegations of domestic abuse against Zimmerman, and a conviction for resisting arrest, in his past. Young Mr. Martin was in the complex in the first place so his dad could straighten him out after being kicked out of school for a week…for what, we don’t know.”
If you read the article, don’t misunderstand his point. He’s not justifying Zimmerman’s actions. He’s simply pointing out that not all the facts are in yet.
Rick Oliver March 23, 2012 - 9:29 pm
“He’s simply pointing out that not all the facts are in yet.”
Well, here’s a fact. The Florida “stand your ground” law is basically a license to kill, as long as there are no witnesses. The state requires no real training for a CCW permit and there are virtually no restrictions on handgun ownership. You don’t like the way someone looks? Pop the guy and say you felt “threatened”. It’s a get-out-of-jail free card.
Vinnie, that was part of DC’s awesome Milestone Merchandising campaign that made MOTU millions.
Actually, Rick, the NRA gun classes are pretty damn good. Wayne LaPierre is completely batshit and as close to The Joker as a guy with skin pigmentation can get, but if you (not YOU, but “you”) want to get yourself a gun and your state requires you pass a class, check out the NRA.
Just watch your back.
R. Maheras March 24, 2012 - 8:42 am
When I’m not dressed in my sweater vest, I’m usually wearing a no-zipper hoodie (although I never wear the hood up unless it’s wicked cold) — so, in the dark, I guess I’m a target too for Zimmer-morons.
It’s supposed to rain today, so if I go out I’ll probably be wearing a hoodie. A hand-me-down from the Unabomber? Hey, wait. I’ve got it! I’ve got a “Chicago Police Department” hoodie! There’s nothing more threatening than a 61 year old white guy in a Chicago Police Department hoodie!
Russ, I like the idea of you wearing a hoodie OVER a sweater vest. Somebody takes a shot at you (yeah, performance art carries a high price) we can say it was Rick Santorum.
Rick Oliver March 24, 2012 - 9:55 am
Mike: I took an NRA hunter safety course a long time ago. (I even got a certificate and a spiffy patch.) It was a terrific introduction to basic gun safety and a solid course in the practical application of gun safety when hunting. It did absolutely nothing to prepare me for what to do when I may or may not feel “threatened” by some stranger on the street.
Well, that’s a point, Rick. I’m not sure how a gun class could teach that. I like gun owners learning gun safety, although I remain in favor of zero population growth.
Is Xanax available over-the-counter yet? It could replace gum-ball machines. Problem solved.
R. Maheras March 24, 2012 - 11:17 am
A car is a far more dangerous and common weapon than any gun, and a driver’s safety course does nothing to prepare the average shmoe for the myriad of sudden life-threatening or dangerous situations one may encounter on the road.
That’s why this old adage applies for both weapons and motor vehicles: Practice makes perfect.
I mostly agree with this. I’d trust both a driver and a gun owner more if they had the practice that training affords.
Malcolm Robertson March 24, 2012 - 3:57 pm
Regarding my earlier link, and this is embarrassing, Mass used the Facebook page of the wrong Trayvon Martin. Who knew there would be more than one?
Malcolm Robertson March 24, 2012 - 4:18 pm
I’m as guilty as anyone else here is on rushing to judgment on this. However, I think we’d do well to remember Richard Jewell, another man who was tried and convicted in the press. Sure the situations are different, but the trial by media is not.
Rick Oliver March 24, 2012 - 4:26 pm
Russ: Cars are not designed to kill people, nor do people carry cars around in their pockets just in case they might need to kill someone who “threatens” them. If guns were designed to transport you from point A to point B you might have a point — but since they aren’t, you don’t. Also, states have specific vehicle licensing requirements, even Florida. There is NO permit or licensing requirement for ownership of a handgun in Florida, and the Florida CCW law does not require any specific gun training, just proof of some kind of training.
Absolutely right, Malcolm. And your comparison with Richard Jewell is quite apt. None of us were there, we only know what we’ve read and heard thus far.
Here’s a useful rule of thumb: when a big story breaks, nearly everything you hear is incomplete and a lot of it is bullshit. As time progresses, details come out UNLESS it becomes a legal matter. Then both sides start jockeying for position. The law and the prosecutors try to nail the accused; he’s Jack the Ripper. The defense says their guy is a saint and the truth will come out in the trial. Then the media only covers the prosecution’s side anyway, and we’re all surprised when the bad guy’s guilt is not proven.
Hopefully, here the truth will come out. And Trayvon will still be dead.
It’s very emotional, to be sure. Every time a story like this breaks, I get a mental image of how Emmett Till looked in his coffin. I pass by Emmett Till Blvd. three or four times a year, when I drive into Chicago. I’ll never get that photo out of my mind.
Reg March 24, 2012 - 5:47 pm
Michael said…”The police let Zimmerman go based on nothing more than his word. There was a dead kid in the street yet they let him go WITH gun.”
Mike G said…”The police aren’t incompetent — they’re their to enforce the laws that are on the books.”
Mike, I respectfully disagree. In this case, the police were abso-friggin’-lutely incompetent…or something far worse. In addition them allowing Zimmerman to just up and walk out WITH the gun that was just involved in a shooting of a teenager, so walked ANY and ALL forensics. No photographs of any wounds that he was supposed to have received which would support him having to defend himself, no fiber testing, no NOTHING.
Unfortunately, I wholeheartedly agree with your other statement…”These laws can be used for self-defense, and they can be used for lynching.”
To again quote George Santayana…“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it” It’s a damned shame that we most often are forced to bear the brunt of that ‘failure to learn’ thing.
Reg March 24, 2012 - 5:55 pm
mOTu…any chance of me being able to get my hands on a Milestone HOODIE? Although a warm spring has arrived early in these parts…I think that rocking an aptly tagged Milestone is apropos.
Reg, the competency of the police involved is, to me, an issue yet to be resolved. If the directive or the law is to not take the gun away and not question the assailant, then they followed the book. This is a horrible, horrible law that doubtlessly generated all kinds of terrible procedures and precedents, so right now nothing would surprise me.
I’m curious to see what Zimmerman’s lawyer puts forward when he says he has exculpatory evidence. Eventually, it’s going to be put up or shut up time for the lawyer and his client… unless there are no federal charges. Then, poof! Zimmerman moves to Texas or to family in Puerto Rico or Peru (evidently, his mother is from Peru) and Trayvon’s family goes to civil court.
Nothing will bring back this kid, and we must not let our righteous desire for fairness and balance blind us to reality. I do not call for Zimmerman’s execution for one reason and one reason alone: I remain opposed to the death penalty in all forms, including the form Zimmerman himself deployed. All that can be done is to get rid of these disgusting, counter-productive laws.
And, yeah, MOTU can probably make a few bucks selling Milestone hoodies.
Rene March 24, 2012 - 7:26 pm
Mike Gold –
Are you serious, man?
Yes, this law is vague and unwise, but the police fucked up big time, too.
A retired federal judge made this comment, that I find very cogent:
“Imagine this scenario: a man shoots and kills someone. He tells the police he was temporarily insane at the time. So they say “OK you can go home and take your gun with you,” because they can’t contradict his claim of insanity at the time of the killing.”
So, should we strike from the books any mention of insanity meaning diminished accountability?
Just because there is a law that says a person can respond with deadly force if they’re attacked with deadly force, it doesn’t mean the police can’t arrest them to determine if that is what happened, when there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. I mean, there’s recorded calls that show that the nutjob initiated the encounter.
I know that a lot of Liberals are blaming everything on this law they hate or the gun lobby they disapprove of so strongly, but that overlooks how criminal the police apparently acted om this.
Mike Gold March 24, 2012 - 8:26 pm
Christ, Rene, you must be pissed. You accused me of being a liberal!
The scenario conceived by the federal judge is apples and oranges. Zimmerman has not claimed insanity. And I do not know the laws and precedents in Florida, and there’s no reason for me to presume the federal judge knows the Florida state laws and precedents either. Since they’re appointted for life and usually only retire when they become dottering embarrassments, they have a hard enough time remembering federal laws without the aid of their clerks.
But I do know this: you can only arrest people for laws that are on the books, and you’re not supposed to bend those laws around emotional situations no matter how righteous. I said the Martin slaying was a lynching, and I meant that. The solution to lynching is not another rush to judgment.
As for your comment regarding the gun lobby, my previously published comments clearly state that I, like MOTU, am pro-gun and most specifically pro-self defense. But I am not NRA-über-alles; only a nut job would defend this law, as written and enforced.
Rene March 24, 2012 - 8:50 pm
Apples and oranges? I think they’re essentially the same thing. Attenuating circunstances that may or may not apply when a person is killed by another. In all cases, it’s very strange if the police just let the killer go because – get this – the killer himself says the attenuating circunstance applies to him.
And when I say let the killer go, I don’t mean that the police just didn’t arrest him. I mean, they don’t get his gun, they don’t perform forensic examination on him, they disregard the recorded conversations that apparently show the nutjob started the confrontation. I mean, c’mon, is that sloppy police work or what?
You mean, this law is so all-encompassing that you must only speak the magic words “self-defense!” and then the police just has to let you go no matter what you do? Gee, I think I’ll be spending my next vacation at Florida. I will rape and murder and maim, and whenever a policeman gets close to me I will shout “self-defense” and they will have to back away, even if I have blood and brains all over me. That is it, just shout “self-defense”.
I’m not defending this stupid law, but I agree with Malcolm here.
And sorry for calling you a liberal.
Rick Oliver March 24, 2012 - 8:58 pm
Who isn’t “pro-self defense”? As for comparing “stand your ground” to temporary insanity, the judge must be senile. A successful plea of temporary insanity typically puts the burden of proof on the defense and requires psychological evaluation and expert testimony. The Florida “stand you ground” law contains no such burden of proof requirement. Of course, it’s Florida. So maybe they have a similarly stupid temporary insanity law. But, yeah, releasing the guy with the main forensic evidence seems kind of negligent.
Rene, I agree that it’s strange. This is not the first time I’ve found a law to be outrageously stupid. Damn, it’s probably not even the first time today (it’s almost midnight, so I’m playing the odds here). So maybe it’s not “strange.” The problem with cynicism is that, damn it, we’ve earned it.
I’m not sure this law extends to rape, but I get your point. Some would say this law allows people who are being raped or are in the presence of their rapist to defend themselves. I say there are other ways of covering this without having to resort to this horrible law and the procedures that, evidently, have come up around it.
And we haven’t even addressed the issues of these “civil patrols.” The basic concept is an accident waiting to happen. Good seminarian laws should cover this.
Malcolm Robertson March 24, 2012 - 9:24 pm
About the gun – if the police had failed to take Zimmerman’s gun as has been reported, it would be a fuck-up of monumental proportions. However, and this applies directly to what I was saying about waiting until the facts are known, they did in fact take the gun.
I’m going to throw in a little bit of “inside baseball” for people who don’t own guns or don’t pay attention to them like I do. If the reports are true that the gun Zimmerman used had only one spent round and failed to cycle another round into the chamber, it is very significant to this case. It could mean that Martin had tried to take the gun away, as that’s a common symptom of someone’s grabbing onto the muzzle of the gun and preventing the slide from cycling. This could mean any number of things both good and bad for Zimmerman. However, Kel-tec makes notoriously unreliable weapons, and it’s completely possible that Zimmerman could have fired the round from a distance and the pistol simply failed to cycle. The presence or absence of gunshot residue on Martin will answer some of this. Again, this speaks to the point of unanswered questions that will affect what any jury decides.
Alice March 24, 2012 - 9:56 pm
He followed the child. A child who was minding his own buisness and had every right to be where he was.
No excuse for this. None.
Rene March 24, 2012 - 10:31 pm
Mike –
About civil patrols, I suppose this case illustrates like nothing before a depressing truth: even if some people somehow developed superpowers, independent superheroes would never work in the real world. You do not want people with deadly power, no accountability, and little formal training to go on patrols and make spur-of the-moment decisions about “individuals acting suspiciously”.
And this is at the heart of what really gets me. Everybody understands what self-defense is. You’re going about your business, and then someone threatens you, you defend yourself. The controversial statute even begins with “A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and who is attacked in any other place…”
Here is the thing, if you are stalking people in the dark of night and shouting questions at them, can you say you’re not engaged in unlawful activity? Wouldn’t that be a case of harassment?
Reg March 24, 2012 - 11:15 pm
@ Malcolm…
“The presence or absence of gunshot residue on Martin will answer some of this…”
As I stated above….such potential forensic evidence was allowed to walk right out of the door and is now long disposed of down the rinse cycle or landfill. And when this killer finally shows his face to the media (with scars supposedly resulting from his ‘struggle’ with Trayvon), if the police can not produce evidence of taking photos of the ‘injuries’ or at the very least a call for ambulance or a report stating they advised him to go to the hospital to get checked out, then I’d bet heavily that Zimmerman took a page out of Scorpio’s playbook ala Dirty Harry.
It ain’t the crime that gets you in trouble. It’s the cover-up.
Malcolm Robertson March 29, 2012 - 9:04 pm
Once again, I’m going to plead that everyone wait until all the facts are known. That montage of police tapes is going to undergo a lot of scrutiny and enhancements. I spent the afternoon and evening doing other things, so I was unaware of it until I just happened to pop by this page. If you watch, at about 1:20 on the tape, an officer seems to check the back of Zimmerman’s head. At about 4:45, you might notice some red discoloration on the upper left part of the back of Zimmerman’s head. Notably, that room is also the best lit for video. The last part might be just the way the light fell on the back of his head, but that same light failed to make similar discoloration on the back of officers with similarly shaved heads. The cops may have let him clean up before placing him in the back of their squad car. If that’s the case, I hope to high heaven they took pictures first.
I’m not passing judgment one way or another on the guy. As I said, if he’s guilty of what people say, he deserves to be executed.
Malcolm Robertson March 29, 2012 - 9:05 pm
I need to amend something, I meant to say that room seems the best lit for video to me. I can’t claim to be an expert on the matter.
Martha Thomases
March 23, 2012 - 3:07 am
Love you
Kathy
March 23, 2012 - 3:36 am
This whole thing makes me sick. That gun toting fat sack of crap with a penchant for calling the cops needs to be charged with murder and thrown in jail.
Russ Rogers
March 23, 2012 - 8:05 am
I have a very similar photo up as my profile photo on facebook. Wearing a hoodie is a not a crime. Neither is liking Ice Tea or Skittles. Taste the Rainbow Coalition!
I can’t say if Mr. Zimmerman deserves to go to jail. But he deserved to be detained and thoroughly questioned. His gun needed to be taken in for evidence. The police needed to do a better job of securing the scene and interviewing witnesses. I can’t believe that police would come upon the scene where someone was shot and killed and just take the shooters word for what happened and then let them walk away from the scene WITH the gun! That’s absolute gross incompetence on the part of the police.
Mike Gold
March 23, 2012 - 9:54 am
Mr. Zimmerman is simply using a horrible law to his advantage. The police aren’t incompetent — they’re their to enforce the laws that are on the books. Almost half of the states in the Union have this law or something quite similar. These laws can be used for self-defense, and they can be used for lynching.
It’s not difficult to find white people who are scared of black kids in hoodies, particularly in cracker states like Florida. Amusingly, there is a case in Florida right now where a black guy shot a white kid “in self-defense.” This claim may or may not be true, but the black guy is in jail.
There are two of these cases in Florida alone every week.
If it were a policeman who shot anybody, there would be an investigation and chances are likely that the officer would be relieved of his gun and assigned desk duty until a determination has been made as to what actually happened (your local police rules may vary). It seems hard to believe that Mr. Martin was provoking an incident, but at the very least an investigation should have happened immediately and Mr. Zimmerman should have been relieved of his weapon until the investigation concluded.
As for Zimmerman being guilty of murder… that seems equally unlikely. Manslaughter would seem the more appropriate change, given what we know of the situation.
Malcolm Robertson
March 23, 2012 - 11:20 am
Just because Zimmerman cites the law does not mean that he’s protected by it. Every bit of evidence I’ve seen so far tells me that he “Stand Your Ground” doesn’t apply to this case. Zimmerman pursued a man trying to get away from him. The sponsor of the legislation has gone on record that this law does not seem to apply to this killing. Even had Martin truly been up to no good, Zimmerman still pursued and forced a confrontation.
If I were the prosecutor, I’d also be very interested in where the guy received his CCW instruction as that could easily hang him as well. I’ve been through the classes required by two different states, as well as training provided by the nation’s leading expert on civilian use of lethal force. If those classes were anywhere near similar to what Florida requires, all a good prosecutor would need to do is show that this man ignored everything he was taught on the legal and ethical implications of shooting.
What I find interesting is that since “Stand Your Ground” was passed, the Brady Campaign called it the “Shoot First Law” and said that it allowed indiscriminate killing in the streets. They even advertised on billboards informing tourists to avoid Floridians because they could legally kill anyone if they felt like it. I’m wondering if this guy didn’t get his information from those billboards.
Assuming there’s no information that exonerates Zimmerman forthcoming, I hope they try, and execute the bastard.
David Quinn
March 23, 2012 - 11:38 am
And Fox News is already out with the “Blame the Guy Who Got Shot” talking points and the beat goes on.
MOTU
March 23, 2012 - 12:09 pm
Malcolm said,
“Assuming there’s no information that exonerates Zimmerman forthcoming, I hope they try, and execute the bastard.”
Twice.
Mike Gold
March 23, 2012 - 12:13 pm
Malcolm, of course this guy is protected by this wretched law. Given the way it is written, the burden of proof is on law enforcement to show he didn’t fire in self-defense. Zimmerman doesn’t have to prove a thing; no exoneration is necessary. That’s the law. It’s just another sophisticated method for lynching.
And when it comes to these laws, Florida is by no means alone here.
Mind you, we do not know the facts of the situation. But no matter what, I wouldn’t hold my breath until Zimmerman’s execution. They’d have to go beyond racism (and, by the way, agism) to prove malice aforethought.
Malcolm Robertson
March 23, 2012 - 4:19 pm
Mike,
The relevant portion of the statute reads:
“A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Moreover, if a person uses deadly force and invokes the law, a police agency “may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.”
From everything I’ve read, it seems that the police had probable cause to arrest George Zimmerman. I can think of four things off the top of my head that give probable cause.
1. Zimmerman called 911 and was told to stay where he was. Instead he utters what many describe as a racial epithet and pursues.
2. During the 911 call there is a cry for help that is identified as Martin by his father.
3. The story given by Martin’s girlfriend who was on the phone with him when he realized that he has being followed.
4. George Zimmerman had 75-100lbs on Trayvon Martin, and there was no evidence of the latter carrying a weapon. This is key, because it speaks to justification for using deadly force. If there was disparity of force present in a self-defense situation, it would be on Zimmerman’s side, and thus deprive him of the justification to employ deadly force.
Castle law or not, the police have enough probable cause to at least make an arrest. The only thing that makes me pause and wonder if we’re not getting the whole story is the fact that they haven’t yet.
Rick Oliver
March 23, 2012 - 4:25 pm
The Florida CCW law is very loose. Completion of an NRA hunter safety course is sufficient to get a CCW permit Furthermore, you don’t need a CCW permit to take advantage of the Florida “stand your ground law”. Zimmerman could have been carrying a handgun is plain sight for which you don’t need a permit of any kind in Florida, let alone any training. One of Martin’s relatives said something like “You can’t take the law into your own hands.” But as Mike already pointed out, that’s pretty much what “stand your ground” laws allow you to do.
Malcolm Robertson
March 23, 2012 - 4:35 pm
I just read an article by Jennifer Granholm where she lists five points that are scarily similar to my four. I never thought I’d see the day where I agree with her on anything…
MOTU
March 23, 2012 - 5:01 pm
The police let Zimmerman go based on nothing more than his word. There was a dead kid in the street yet they let him go WITH gun.
I KNOW I’d be at LEAST brought down for ‘questioning’ if I shot someone I didn’t know who was in my HOME.
Something I look forward to doing if some motherfucker DARES to come into my home uninvited.
The kid was WALKING home. He had EVERY right to be where he was-he was profiled and now he’s DEAD. Zimmerman should be UNDER the fucking jail.
Malcolm Robertson
March 23, 2012 - 8:39 pm
An blog piece about some unanswered questions in the case:
http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2012/03/23/george-zimmerman-and-trayvon-martin-what-we-dont-know/
The author, Massad Ayoob, has literally debriefed hundreds (maybe even thousands) of gunfight survivors. He’s also been an expert witness in several high profile cases, and has assisted the FBI in training. He is the expert I referred to in an earlier post. Anyone active the firearms community is likely familiar him. I point out his qualifications so people will know that this man knows his shit, and isn’t some redneck spouting off.
One of the things he notes:
“Both men, according to initial reports, were “squeaky clean” in terms of their background. We now know, meh, not so much. There were allegations of domestic abuse against Zimmerman, and a conviction for resisting arrest, in his past. Young Mr. Martin was in the complex in the first place so his dad could straighten him out after being kicked out of school for a week…for what, we don’t know.”
If you read the article, don’t misunderstand his point. He’s not justifying Zimmerman’s actions. He’s simply pointing out that not all the facts are in yet.
Rick Oliver
March 23, 2012 - 9:29 pm
“He’s simply pointing out that not all the facts are in yet.”
Well, here’s a fact. The Florida “stand your ground” law is basically a license to kill, as long as there are no witnesses. The state requires no real training for a CCW permit and there are virtually no restrictions on handgun ownership. You don’t like the way someone looks? Pop the guy and say you felt “threatened”. It’s a get-out-of-jail free card.
Vinnie Bartilucci
March 23, 2012 - 11:29 pm
Milestone Media hoodies?
Really?
The Awesome.
Mike Gold
March 24, 2012 - 7:46 am
Vinnie, that was part of DC’s awesome Milestone Merchandising campaign that made MOTU millions.
Actually, Rick, the NRA gun classes are pretty damn good. Wayne LaPierre is completely batshit and as close to The Joker as a guy with skin pigmentation can get, but if you (not YOU, but “you”) want to get yourself a gun and your state requires you pass a class, check out the NRA.
Just watch your back.
R. Maheras
March 24, 2012 - 8:42 am
When I’m not dressed in my sweater vest, I’m usually wearing a no-zipper hoodie (although I never wear the hood up unless it’s wicked cold) — so, in the dark, I guess I’m a target too for Zimmer-morons.
Mike Gold
March 24, 2012 - 9:03 am
It’s supposed to rain today, so if I go out I’ll probably be wearing a hoodie. A hand-me-down from the Unabomber? Hey, wait. I’ve got it! I’ve got a “Chicago Police Department” hoodie! There’s nothing more threatening than a 61 year old white guy in a Chicago Police Department hoodie!
Russ, I like the idea of you wearing a hoodie OVER a sweater vest. Somebody takes a shot at you (yeah, performance art carries a high price) we can say it was Rick Santorum.
Rick Oliver
March 24, 2012 - 9:55 am
Mike: I took an NRA hunter safety course a long time ago. (I even got a certificate and a spiffy patch.) It was a terrific introduction to basic gun safety and a solid course in the practical application of gun safety when hunting. It did absolutely nothing to prepare me for what to do when I may or may not feel “threatened” by some stranger on the street.
Mike Gold
March 24, 2012 - 10:24 am
Well, that’s a point, Rick. I’m not sure how a gun class could teach that. I like gun owners learning gun safety, although I remain in favor of zero population growth.
Is Xanax available over-the-counter yet? It could replace gum-ball machines. Problem solved.
R. Maheras
March 24, 2012 - 11:17 am
A car is a far more dangerous and common weapon than any gun, and a driver’s safety course does nothing to prepare the average shmoe for the myriad of sudden life-threatening or dangerous situations one may encounter on the road.
That’s why this old adage applies for both weapons and motor vehicles: Practice makes perfect.
Mike Gold
March 24, 2012 - 12:02 pm
I mostly agree with this. I’d trust both a driver and a gun owner more if they had the practice that training affords.
Malcolm Robertson
March 24, 2012 - 3:57 pm
Regarding my earlier link, and this is embarrassing, Mass used the Facebook page of the wrong Trayvon Martin. Who knew there would be more than one?
Malcolm Robertson
March 24, 2012 - 4:18 pm
I’m as guilty as anyone else here is on rushing to judgment on this. However, I think we’d do well to remember Richard Jewell, another man who was tried and convicted in the press. Sure the situations are different, but the trial by media is not.
Rick Oliver
March 24, 2012 - 4:26 pm
Russ: Cars are not designed to kill people, nor do people carry cars around in their pockets just in case they might need to kill someone who “threatens” them. If guns were designed to transport you from point A to point B you might have a point — but since they aren’t, you don’t. Also, states have specific vehicle licensing requirements, even Florida. There is NO permit or licensing requirement for ownership of a handgun in Florida, and the Florida CCW law does not require any specific gun training, just proof of some kind of training.
Mike Gold
March 24, 2012 - 4:27 pm
Absolutely right, Malcolm. And your comparison with Richard Jewell is quite apt. None of us were there, we only know what we’ve read and heard thus far.
Here’s a useful rule of thumb: when a big story breaks, nearly everything you hear is incomplete and a lot of it is bullshit. As time progresses, details come out UNLESS it becomes a legal matter. Then both sides start jockeying for position. The law and the prosecutors try to nail the accused; he’s Jack the Ripper. The defense says their guy is a saint and the truth will come out in the trial. Then the media only covers the prosecution’s side anyway, and we’re all surprised when the bad guy’s guilt is not proven.
Hopefully, here the truth will come out. And Trayvon will still be dead.
It’s very emotional, to be sure. Every time a story like this breaks, I get a mental image of how Emmett Till looked in his coffin. I pass by Emmett Till Blvd. three or four times a year, when I drive into Chicago. I’ll never get that photo out of my mind.
Reg
March 24, 2012 - 5:47 pm
Michael said…”The police let Zimmerman go based on nothing more than his word. There was a dead kid in the street yet they let him go WITH gun.”
Mike G said…”The police aren’t incompetent — they’re their to enforce the laws that are on the books.”
Mike, I respectfully disagree. In this case, the police were abso-friggin’-lutely incompetent…or something far worse. In addition them allowing Zimmerman to just up and walk out WITH the gun that was just involved in a shooting of a teenager, so walked ANY and ALL forensics. No photographs of any wounds that he was supposed to have received which would support him having to defend himself, no fiber testing, no NOTHING.
Unfortunately, I wholeheartedly agree with your other statement…”These laws can be used for self-defense, and they can be used for lynching.”
To again quote George Santayana…“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it” It’s a damned shame that we most often are forced to bear the brunt of that ‘failure to learn’ thing.
Reg
March 24, 2012 - 5:55 pm
mOTu…any chance of me being able to get my hands on a Milestone HOODIE? Although a warm spring has arrived early in these parts…I think that rocking an aptly tagged Milestone is apropos.
Mike Gold
March 24, 2012 - 7:15 pm
Reg, the competency of the police involved is, to me, an issue yet to be resolved. If the directive or the law is to not take the gun away and not question the assailant, then they followed the book. This is a horrible, horrible law that doubtlessly generated all kinds of terrible procedures and precedents, so right now nothing would surprise me.
I’m curious to see what Zimmerman’s lawyer puts forward when he says he has exculpatory evidence. Eventually, it’s going to be put up or shut up time for the lawyer and his client… unless there are no federal charges. Then, poof! Zimmerman moves to Texas or to family in Puerto Rico or Peru (evidently, his mother is from Peru) and Trayvon’s family goes to civil court.
Nothing will bring back this kid, and we must not let our righteous desire for fairness and balance blind us to reality. I do not call for Zimmerman’s execution for one reason and one reason alone: I remain opposed to the death penalty in all forms, including the form Zimmerman himself deployed. All that can be done is to get rid of these disgusting, counter-productive laws.
Mike Gold
March 24, 2012 - 7:16 pm
And, yeah, MOTU can probably make a few bucks selling Milestone hoodies.
Rene
March 24, 2012 - 7:26 pm
Mike Gold –
Are you serious, man?
Yes, this law is vague and unwise, but the police fucked up big time, too.
A retired federal judge made this comment, that I find very cogent:
“Imagine this scenario: a man shoots and kills someone. He tells the police he was temporarily insane at the time. So they say “OK you can go home and take your gun with you,” because they can’t contradict his claim of insanity at the time of the killing.”
So, should we strike from the books any mention of insanity meaning diminished accountability?
Just because there is a law that says a person can respond with deadly force if they’re attacked with deadly force, it doesn’t mean the police can’t arrest them to determine if that is what happened, when there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. I mean, there’s recorded calls that show that the nutjob initiated the encounter.
I know that a lot of Liberals are blaming everything on this law they hate or the gun lobby they disapprove of so strongly, but that overlooks how criminal the police apparently acted om this.
Mike Gold
March 24, 2012 - 8:26 pm
Christ, Rene, you must be pissed. You accused me of being a liberal!
The scenario conceived by the federal judge is apples and oranges. Zimmerman has not claimed insanity. And I do not know the laws and precedents in Florida, and there’s no reason for me to presume the federal judge knows the Florida state laws and precedents either. Since they’re appointted for life and usually only retire when they become dottering embarrassments, they have a hard enough time remembering federal laws without the aid of their clerks.
But I do know this: you can only arrest people for laws that are on the books, and you’re not supposed to bend those laws around emotional situations no matter how righteous. I said the Martin slaying was a lynching, and I meant that. The solution to lynching is not another rush to judgment.
As for your comment regarding the gun lobby, my previously published comments clearly state that I, like MOTU, am pro-gun and most specifically pro-self defense. But I am not NRA-über-alles; only a nut job would defend this law, as written and enforced.
Rene
March 24, 2012 - 8:50 pm
Apples and oranges? I think they’re essentially the same thing. Attenuating circunstances that may or may not apply when a person is killed by another. In all cases, it’s very strange if the police just let the killer go because – get this – the killer himself says the attenuating circunstance applies to him.
And when I say let the killer go, I don’t mean that the police just didn’t arrest him. I mean, they don’t get his gun, they don’t perform forensic examination on him, they disregard the recorded conversations that apparently show the nutjob started the confrontation. I mean, c’mon, is that sloppy police work or what?
You mean, this law is so all-encompassing that you must only speak the magic words “self-defense!” and then the police just has to let you go no matter what you do? Gee, I think I’ll be spending my next vacation at Florida. I will rape and murder and maim, and whenever a policeman gets close to me I will shout “self-defense” and they will have to back away, even if I have blood and brains all over me. That is it, just shout “self-defense”.
I’m not defending this stupid law, but I agree with Malcolm here.
And sorry for calling you a liberal.
Rick Oliver
March 24, 2012 - 8:58 pm
Who isn’t “pro-self defense”? As for comparing “stand your ground” to temporary insanity, the judge must be senile. A successful plea of temporary insanity typically puts the burden of proof on the defense and requires psychological evaluation and expert testimony. The Florida “stand you ground” law contains no such burden of proof requirement. Of course, it’s Florida. So maybe they have a similarly stupid temporary insanity law. But, yeah, releasing the guy with the main forensic evidence seems kind of negligent.
Mike Gold
March 24, 2012 - 9:00 pm
Rene, I agree that it’s strange. This is not the first time I’ve found a law to be outrageously stupid. Damn, it’s probably not even the first time today (it’s almost midnight, so I’m playing the odds here). So maybe it’s not “strange.” The problem with cynicism is that, damn it, we’ve earned it.
I’m not sure this law extends to rape, but I get your point. Some would say this law allows people who are being raped or are in the presence of their rapist to defend themselves. I say there are other ways of covering this without having to resort to this horrible law and the procedures that, evidently, have come up around it.
And we haven’t even addressed the issues of these “civil patrols.” The basic concept is an accident waiting to happen. Good seminarian laws should cover this.
Malcolm Robertson
March 24, 2012 - 9:24 pm
About the gun – if the police had failed to take Zimmerman’s gun as has been reported, it would be a fuck-up of monumental proportions. However, and this applies directly to what I was saying about waiting until the facts are known, they did in fact take the gun.
http://bostonherald.com/news/national/south/view/20120324trayvon_martin_cases_myths_half_truths
I’m going to throw in a little bit of “inside baseball” for people who don’t own guns or don’t pay attention to them like I do. If the reports are true that the gun Zimmerman used had only one spent round and failed to cycle another round into the chamber, it is very significant to this case. It could mean that Martin had tried to take the gun away, as that’s a common symptom of someone’s grabbing onto the muzzle of the gun and preventing the slide from cycling. This could mean any number of things both good and bad for Zimmerman. However, Kel-tec makes notoriously unreliable weapons, and it’s completely possible that Zimmerman could have fired the round from a distance and the pistol simply failed to cycle. The presence or absence of gunshot residue on Martin will answer some of this. Again, this speaks to the point of unanswered questions that will affect what any jury decides.
Alice
March 24, 2012 - 9:56 pm
He followed the child. A child who was minding his own buisness and had every right to be where he was.
No excuse for this. None.
Rene
March 24, 2012 - 10:31 pm
Mike –
About civil patrols, I suppose this case illustrates like nothing before a depressing truth: even if some people somehow developed superpowers, independent superheroes would never work in the real world. You do not want people with deadly power, no accountability, and little formal training to go on patrols and make spur-of the-moment decisions about “individuals acting suspiciously”.
And this is at the heart of what really gets me. Everybody understands what self-defense is. You’re going about your business, and then someone threatens you, you defend yourself. The controversial statute even begins with “A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and who is attacked in any other place…”
Here is the thing, if you are stalking people in the dark of night and shouting questions at them, can you say you’re not engaged in unlawful activity? Wouldn’t that be a case of harassment?
Reg
March 24, 2012 - 11:15 pm
@ Malcolm…
“The presence or absence of gunshot residue on Martin will answer some of this…”
As I stated above….such potential forensic evidence was allowed to walk right out of the door and is now long disposed of down the rinse cycle or landfill. And when this killer finally shows his face to the media (with scars supposedly resulting from his ‘struggle’ with Trayvon), if the police can not produce evidence of taking photos of the ‘injuries’ or at the very least a call for ambulance or a report stating they advised him to go to the hospital to get checked out, then I’d bet heavily that Zimmerman took a page out of Scorpio’s playbook ala Dirty Harry.
Reg
March 28, 2012 - 7:45 pm
Huh. Imagine that.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/28/trayvon-martin-police-video_n_1386764.html
Mike Gold
March 28, 2012 - 8:07 pm
And how did the kid’s pot residue suspension get leaked by the cops, but Zimmerman’s arrest record — for assaulting a COP — did not?
Mike Gold
March 28, 2012 - 8:12 pm
Oh, and, um, about those witnesses? The ones who saw the bloodless bruseless beating? Isn’t lying to the cops some sort of crime?
If I had to chose between being Zimmerman or being the Sanford chief of police right now, my head would explode.
MOTU
March 28, 2012 - 9:35 pm
I can’t WAIT for the spin on the police video from those on the Right who SWORE the kid was beating the shit out of Zimmerman.
Mike Gold
March 29, 2012 - 8:03 am
It ain’t the crime that gets you in trouble. It’s the cover-up.
Malcolm Robertson
March 29, 2012 - 9:04 pm
Once again, I’m going to plead that everyone wait until all the facts are known. That montage of police tapes is going to undergo a lot of scrutiny and enhancements. I spent the afternoon and evening doing other things, so I was unaware of it until I just happened to pop by this page. If you watch, at about 1:20 on the tape, an officer seems to check the back of Zimmerman’s head. At about 4:45, you might notice some red discoloration on the upper left part of the back of Zimmerman’s head. Notably, that room is also the best lit for video. The last part might be just the way the light fell on the back of his head, but that same light failed to make similar discoloration on the back of officers with similarly shaved heads. The cops may have let him clean up before placing him in the back of their squad car. If that’s the case, I hope to high heaven they took pictures first.
I’m not passing judgment one way or another on the guy. As I said, if he’s guilty of what people say, he deserves to be executed.
Malcolm Robertson
March 29, 2012 - 9:05 pm
I need to amend something, I meant to say that room seems the best lit for video to me. I can’t claim to be an expert on the matter.