Shooting of Trayvon Martin

[Ominous Gamer]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/op...fense-law.html

THE very public controversy surrounding the killing on Feb. 26 of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old, by a crime watch volunteer, George Zimmerman, was predictable.

In fact, I, along with other Florida chiefs of police, said so in a letter to the Legislature in 2005 when we opposed the passage of a law that not only enshrined the doctrine of “your home is your castle” but took this doctrine into the public square and added a new concept called “stand your ground.”

Use-of-force issues arose often during my 41-year policing career. In fact, officer-involved shootings were the No. 1 problem when I became Miami’s police chief in January 2003. But after we put in place new policies and training, officers went 20 months without discharging a single bullet at a person, while arrests increased over 30 percent.

Trying to control shootings by members of a well-trained and disciplined police department is a daunting enough task. Laws like “stand your ground” give citizens unfettered power and discretion with no accountability. It is a recipe for disaster.

At the time the Florida law was working its way through the Legislature, proponents argued that a homeowner should have the absolute right to defend himself and his home against an intruder and should not have to worry about the legal consequences if he killed someone. Proponents also maintained that there should be no judicial review of such a shooting.

But I pointed out at the time that even a police officer is held to account for every single bullet he or she discharges, so why should a private citizen be given more rights when it came to using deadly physical force? I also asked the bill’s sponsor, State Representative Dennis K. Baxley, to point to any case in Florida where a homeowner had been indicted or arrested as a result of “defending his castle.” He could not come up with a single one.

The only thing that is worse than a bad law is an unnecessary law. Clearly, this was the case here.

The second part of the law — “stand your ground” — is the most problematic. Until 2005, in all 50 states, the law on the use of force for civilians was pretty simple. If you found yourself in a situation where you felt threatened but could safely retreat, you had the duty to do so. (A police officer does not have the duty to retreat; that is the distinction between a sworn police officer and the average citizen regarding use of force.)

Police officers are trained to de-escalate highly charged encounters with aggressive people, using deadly force as a last resort. Citizens, on the other hand, may act from emotion and perceived threats. But “stand your ground” gives citizens the right to use force in public if they feel threatened. As the law emphatically states, a citizen has “no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.”

During one debate, one of the law’s proponents suggested that if a citizen felt threatened in a public space, he should not have to retreat and should be able to meet force with force. I pointed out that citizens feel threatened all the time, whether it’s from the approach of an aggressive panhandler or squeegee pest or even just walking down a poorly lighted street at night. In tightly congested urban areas, public encounters can be threatening; a look, a physical bump, a leer, someone you think may be following you. This is part of urban life. You learn to navigate threatening settings without resorting to force. Retreating is always the best option.

As Florida police chiefs predicted in 2005, the law has been used to justify killings ranging from drug dealers’ turf battles to road rage incidents. Homicides categorized as justifiable have nearly tripled since the law went into effect.

Back in 2005, the National Rifle Association identified about two dozen states as fertile ground for the passage of laws just like this one. Florida was the first state to pass such a law. Today, at least 20 other states have followed suit.

Gov. Rick Scott of Florida can make all Floridians proud by being the first governor to reject and repeal such misguided laws.

John F. Timoney is a former Miami police chief, Philadelphia police commissioner and deputy police commissioner in New York. He is now senior police adviser to the Bahrain Minister of the Interior.

[GGT]

Pop quiz - what was the legal standard for self defense in Florida before SYG?

(FYI, it imposed a duty on the victim to attempt to avoid the conflict before allowing them to legitimately defend themselves, and that is morally reprehensible, charging someone with a crime for defending themselves against an attacker.)

As written, anyone can define "threatened" as they wish, use their subjective fears and gut reactions as a perceived "attack", and decide to shoot. That's not legitimate self-defense. Now read the NYT letter OG posted....and show us how the previous legal standard wasn't enough to protect legitimate self-defense from prosecution.

[Enoch the Red]

As written, anyone can define "threatened" as they wish, use their subjective fears and gut reactions as a perceived "attack", and decide to shoot. That's not legitimate self-defense. Now read the NYT letter OG posted....and show us how the previous legal standard wasn't enough to protect legitimate self-defense from prosecution.

That's not true. Threatened is clearly defined within the law, GGT.

[GGT]

FL police chiefs and critics didn't think the SYG law clearly defined "threat" in 2005. It's still debatable.

[Enoch the Red]

FL police chiefs and critics didn't think the SYG law clearly defined "threat" in 2005. It's still debatable.

And some police chiefs don't think that private individuals should be able to own firearms at all. What's your point?

[CitizenCain]

FL police chiefs and critics didn't think the SYG law clearly defined "threat" in 2005. It's still debatable.

Well, then maybe they should have gotten involved in rectifying the legal situation regarding self-defense, instead of whining that they had to give up some of their authority and control because they kept fucking shit up and pissing the Florida citizenry off.

They have a vested interest in opposing this law, yet you take their statements at face value. It's tiring, really.

And some police chiefs don't think that private individuals should be able to own firearms at all. What's your point?

For that matter, some police chiefs think the KKK is the only hope for America to return to right-thinking.

[GGT]

And some police chiefs don't think that private individuals should be able to own firearms at all. What's your point?

Any time someone is murdered, there should be an "investigation". 'Justifiable homicide' self-defense was already covered by existing laws, including castle doctrines, and nothing pointed to legitimate self-defense killings being wrongly prosecuted/convicted. So what was the point of new SYG laws?

SYG laws may have changed the language about duty to retreat in public spaces, but that could have been done by amending existing laws....without opening a can of worms on "perception of threat".

[Aimless]

That's not true. Threatened is clearly defined within the law, GGT.

I'd like to see that clear definition, it'd perhaps improve this discussion

[Enoch the Red]

I'd like to see that clear definition, it'd perhaps improve this discussion

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity (Running down and harassing a teenager on their way back from the store likely not lawful behavior, and you can't even argue that he was performing a citizens arrest because there was no justification for it. -Ed) 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.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the 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.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

[Ominous Gamer]

The law doesn't give anywhere near a clear definition. Section .012 mentions death, bodily harm to anyone (the loophole [hell, lewk thinks half of science is a threat to his mind]) and felonies. .013 is the castle law, .032 protects police and .041 is the one that allows the original aggressor to use deadly force if the tables turn against him (as was explained in the previous example, and when combined with .012 is being used to allow gangwars).

-----

The funeral director is coming out saying that the murdered treen had no signs of a struggle that would back up Zimmerman's claims. No bruising, cuts, or anything to suggest a fight. This seems to be in line with the police tapes that show nothing of the sort on Zimmerman

[LittleFuzzy]

I'm going to commit an authority fallacy and say a funeral director can say whatever they please but the only relevant statement on that comes from the coroner/medical examiner.

[Enoch the Red]

The law doesn't give anywhere near a clear definition. Section .012 mentions death, bodily harm to anyone (the loophole [hell, lewk thinks half of science is a threat to his mind]) and felonies. .013 is the castle law, .032 protects police and .041 is the one that allows the original aggressor to use deadly force if the tables turn against him (as was explained in the previous example, and when combined with .012 is being used to allow gangwars).

"However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or..."

How is that not considered a clear definition, and what part don't you understand? The reasonable person metric? What imminent death, or great bodily harm means? What the commission of a forcible felony is?

[Aimless]

I suppose we'd be in the clear if we made everyone read the text of this law and conduct a good analysis of the situation prior to killing someone in "self-defense". Given previous assertions in this thread about the realities of a violent conflict I find the above defense of the law a little curious. But thanks for providing the text

[GGT]

"However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or..."

How is that not considered a clear definition, and what part don't you understand? The reasonable person metric? What imminent death, or great bodily harm means? What the commission of a forcible felony is?

That even this forum can't agree on what terms like reasonable or necessary means, says there's too much subjectiveness built into the law. It becomes the shooter's word against the person who's DEAD!

Police shouldn't just write an Incident Report from the shooter's account, apply SYG criteria, decide he used justifiable lethal force in self-defense---and let him 'walk'. That gives shooters and cops the power to act as judge-and-jury, right at the crime scene.



edit for those who are interested: NYT has a good interactive diagram using google map views of the apartment complex, the 7-11, and positions of Martin/Zimmerman. Looks to me like Zimmerman assumed the kid was "headed to the back exit" (trying to flee a crime scene?) when he was really headed back to the house.

[GGT]

Question (mostly for Ghost) regarding SYG laws and "unintended consequences":

Since cases like this can lead to more security cameras in public spaces, and more cell phone traffic being accessed by police...how would you square other individual freedoms (like being in public without camera surveillance)....without giving preference to the gun-carrier?

[Enoch the Red]

Question (mostly for Ghost) regarding SYG laws and "unintended consequences":

Since cases like this can lead to more security cameras in public spaces, and more cell phone traffic being accessed by police...how would you square other individual freedoms (like being in public without camera surveillance)....without giving preference to the gun-carrier?

I think your argument is a non sequitur, and I wouldn't not want to answer it without first detaching it from your original premise. Additionally, there's simply no question in my mind that self defense laws and privacy laws can coexist.

[Ominous Gamer]

I'm going to commit an authority fallacy and say a funeral director can say whatever they please but the only relevant statement on that comes from the coroner/medical examiner.

no doubt there are some sources that will hold more weight than others once everything in this case settles. but this thread seems to be focusing on what we do know from those that will step forward

With that, the CNN has two audio forensics experts claiming that the voice on the 911 calls screaming for help is not Zimmermans.

[Lewkowski]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/nbc-launc...rman-911-call/

Yeah... its almost as if the media wants to paint America as racist. Didn't NBC also do the edited photo of the guy protesting Obama and he was wearing a rifle? You know they run that story and Obama, guns, race and then edit the picture so the viewer doesn't realize the guy with the gun is actually black.

Its almost as if the media has an agenda! Hmm

[Being]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/nbc-launc...rman-911-call/

Yeah... its almost as if the media wants to paint America as racist. Didn't NBC also do the edited photo of the guy protesting Obama and he was wearing a rifle? You know they run that story and Obama, guns, race and then edit the picture so the viewer doesn't realize the guy with the gun is actually black.

Its almost as if the media has an agenda! Hmm

Are you racist?

[Ominous Gamer]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/nbc-launc...rman-911-call/

Yeah... its almost as if the media wants to paint America as racist. Didn't NBC also do the edited photo of the guy protesting Obama and he was wearing a rifle? You know they run that story and Obama, guns, race and then edit the picture so the viewer doesn't realize the guy with the gun is actually black.

Its almost as if the media has an agenda! Hmm

You're attacking NBC for acknowledging that one of their reporters did a possible unethically shortening of the 911 call, but I can't remember the last time you called out Fox for... well anything they lie (including how they tried to blame the hoodie for the teens death) about and how they seem to treat it as a viable business model?

Oh, and MSNBC did not edit any pictures of the black guy carrying a rifle, but there was a bit of a thing at one point with people doing their own selective editing for combining the reporters speech about racial overtones with said picture.

[Enoch the Red]

Oh, and MSNBC did not edit any pictures of the black guy carrying a rifle, but there was a bit of a thing at one point with people doing their own selective editing for combining the reporters speech about racial overtones with said picture.

Er, I don't feel that's a remotely accurate description of what happened.



Here's the image they don't show you.



This isn't cobbled together news footage from disparate MSNBC segments, OG, this is the same segment. I have seen no evidence to support what you've said, and I've done more than a cursory search for anything to corroborate your opinion.

Here's the full transcript.

10:41AM TEASE:
DYLAN RATIGAN: Still to come at the Morning Meeting, protesters packing heat at town hall meetings, it continues to happen. Is this freedom of speech or an implied threat? Even if it is legal? Guns at town hall meetings.
10:45AM SEGMENT:
DYLAN RATIGAN: Alright, guns at town hall rallies, you’re probably familiar. Well, people continue to do it, packing heat at these health care protests. Contessa has the latest. What’s going on?
CONTESSA BREWER: Yeah, we are closely following here, Dylan, town halls and other events around the country today to see who shows up and what they bring with them. More than 20 town halls scheduled from east-to-west, Virginia to Washington state. Yesterday, as President Obama addressed the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Phoenix. A man at a pro-health care reform rally just outside, wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip. The Associated Press reports about a dozen people in all at that event were visible carrying firearms. And if the scene looks familiar, that’s because it should, last week a guy stood outside Obama’s health care town hall in Portsmouth, New Hampshire with a gun strapped to his leg and police arrested a 62-year-old before that New Hampshire event for carrying unlicensed loaded gun. And the reason we’re talking about this, a lot of talk here, Dylan, because people feel like, yes, there are Second Amendment rights for sure but also there are questions about whether this has racial overtones. I mean, here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists or to their legs.
TOURE: It sounds simplistic when you put it that way, but it is real that there is tremendous anger in this country about government, the way government seems to be taking over the country, anger about a black person being president. Just several upheavals in the country over the last ten years from 9/11, to the economic tsunami, to the black man becoming president and, you know, we see these hate groups rising up and this is definitely part of that.
BREWER: So do you – do you think if Barack Obama were white, though, that you would not see people showing up – let’s say if it were Bill Clinton – you would not see people showing up with weapons strapped to their legs?
TOURE: You know, I don’t know. I don’t know. That – I mean-
RATIGAN: I think it’s unknowable. The context-
TOURE: -that’s hard to say. It is unknowable. But you do see a rise in hate group activity throughout the country.
RATIGAN: But I think that the combination of the bank bailout coming through and the conversation where people know that they were stolen from in that. They may not know how, but they know that $14 dollars of American taxpayer money was used and a bunch of people kept the money and know the health insurance thing, they know all the – and then they get the variable of a black president on top of all these other things and that’s the move – the cherry on top, if you will, to the accumulated frustration for folks. I mean that’s-
TOURE: I’m not going to be surprised if we see somebody get a chance and take a chance and really try to hurt him or really-
RATIGAN: Of course.
TOURE: You know, and I mean it’s up to the Secret Service to make sure that it doesn’t actually become history, but, you know, I think we’re going to see somebody, you know, some sort of Squeaky From, some sort of Mark Hinckley figure, because there’s so much anger in the country about him, about what’s going on with government.
RATIGAN: Angry at government and racism, you put those two together.
BREWER: But also because when Democratic presidents take over – I mean, during the Clinton administration, we did see a weapons ban on these semiautomatic assault weapons and did you see people showing up with guns to prove a point? You know-
RATIGAN: No, but the economy was good then and they were, at that point, passing a law that allowed the largest financial ponzi scheme ever in ‘99. So times were good, right? In other words, when people have jobs and people are – feel like they can get rich and the credit is flowing and you’ve got a more comfortable white president, socially-
BREWER: But don’t you think a lot of people are just uncomfortable with guns, too?
RATIGAN: -the temperature is lower.
BREWER: I mean if you show up-
RATIGAN: Of course.
BREWER: A lot of people aren’t exposed to weapons.
TOURE: Look, we can’t separate the mood of the country, which is very uncertain, there’s a lot of tumult going on from there being a black president. And the two things fit and feed each other and so many people are happy about it and feel it’s a new post-racial America and so many people are still mad about a black person, and black people in general, reaching that level.
RATIGAN: And then again, you combine that with the reality of unemployment, the reality of health care, there are all of these sort of frust – real things that are frustrating people who feel the government’s not delivering to them what they feel it should. And then you create this-
TOURE: Look, I mean you can’t separate the health care debate from anger at government in general.
RATIGAN: Of course.
TOURE: We’ve seen these major government moves with the bank bailout, with what happened in Detroit, now here comes a third one. So people, when they talk about socialism, that is a real emotion of government taking over.
RATIGAN: And government taking over at the same time they’re allowing the so-called fat cats in the banks, everybody’s getting away – the status quo is getting away with it and that makes people frustrated, too, and they are.
BREWER: Just to put a finer point on this, just because people are worried about the government getting too big and taking power where it should not, does not necessarily correlate to people being racist. It’s not necessarily because of-
TOURE: Absolutely.
RATIGAN: That’s true, but I would say people frustrated with the government raises the overall temperature.
BREWER: Right.
RATIGAN: Then, totally unrelated, you would install a black president at a time when the temperature is higher and you just have a more volatile combination, where people have to behave in a more conscious manner or we’re going to have problems.
TOURE: I mean, look, there’s no – I mean, you just know that there is a significant swath of the country that is still angry about there being a black person as president and will do whatever they have to do to show their anger.
BREWER: I do.
RATIGAN: But, again, there are different items that come together that can be a bad combination.
TOURE: Yeah.

You can take Lewk to task for a double standard with Fox, sure, but that doesn't mean you have to gloss over blatant journalistic dishonesty from news outlets that happen to support your world view.

[Ominous Gamer]

I still don't see anything thats showing MSNBC editing the photos I understand how it can be seen as dishonest in the broadcast, but I also see the point of the strapped heat being a general speaking point. Especially if the reporter was creating a broadcast from footage that was filmed while she wasn't present.

The only edited pictures I've seen have been with 3rd parties splicing their own clips. Thats what i was referring to with my above post.

edit:
My bad everyone for encouraging another lewk derail

[Enoch the Red]

I still don't see anything thats showing MSNBC editing the photos I understand how it can be seen as dishonest in the broadcast, but I also see the point of the strapped heat being a general speaking point.

Of course you do...

[GGT]

I think your argument is a non sequitur, and I wouldn't not want to answer it without first detaching it from your original premise. Additionally, there's simply no question in my mind that self defense laws and privacy laws can coexist.

It wasn't intended as an 'argument', but yeah, that's another thread on its own. For that matter, the racist / racism / racial profiling angle could be its own thread, separated from the SYG law debate. The Martin case has a lot of moving parts.

[Lewkowski]

I still don't see anything thats showing MSNBC editing the photos I understand how it can be seen as dishonest in the broadcast, but I also see the point of the strapped heat being a general speaking point. Especially if the reporter was creating a broadcast from footage that was filmed while she wasn't present.

The only edited pictures I've seen have been with 3rd parties splicing their own clips. Thats what i was referring to with my above post.

edit:
My bad everyone for encouraging another lewk derail

Yeah cus talking about "White people with guns strapped to their waists" and using a photo of a black person with a gun (but carefully not showing his skin color in the edited shot) is totally legit. LOL

[Lewkowski]

Are you racist?

Of course I don't believe in Affirmative Action. I've stated this over and over on this board. Pay attention please.

[Steely Glint]

Looks like the major news networks in the US share the same relaxed attitude to factual accuracy as the British print media.

[CitizenCain]

Even the BBC's been caught doing it, Steely. It's not a matter of a few isolated bad actors or market segments, it's that the "news" is more interested in pushing a point of view (because that's what consumers want, it seems) than a factually accurate record of events.

[Illusions]

Even the BBC's been caught doing it, Steely. It's not a matter of a few isolated bad actors or market segments, it's that the "news" is more interested in pushing a point of view (because that's what consumers want, it seems) than a factually accurate record of events.

If the majority of people wanted a factually accurate record of events, the term Reality TV wouldn't be a misnomer for the genre of television its related to.

[CitizenCain]

No arguments here.

Hope this also clears up why, as a general rule, I loathe humanity.