Trayvon Martin case: A collision of race, guns and Florida law

[JerryNumbers]

Trayvon Martin case: A collision of race, guns and Florida law

Of course none of us have all the facts, yet this looks bad, a young black boy 17 years of age walking back from the store having bought a iced tea & package of Skittles, & a 28 year old shoots him down.

[John81]

It would never have made national headlines if the one who died wasn't black.

They really tried to push this story because at first they thought the shooter was white. It wasn't until later someone in his family pointed out that he's hispanic, but the story was already national by then.

The shooter is some kind of neighborhood watch captain or something. It seems there has been a history of trouble in the area. The one who shot him claims the black youth was up to no good, he confronted him, they fought, he shot him.

The one shot has family claiming he was a good kid.

We really don't know, and now with so much national attention on this because of some wanting to turn this into a racial issue that must play out on the national stage so the likes of Sharpton and such can grab some headlines, we may never know the truth.

[OLD fashioned preacher]

I agree that this should not be played as a race factor (there is a town 17 miles from here that if I was there in the evening it would arouse concern and suspicion because I'm not Mexican -- not because they are racist but because my presence would be considered out of line with their normal evening setting).

We don't have all the info; with what we do have, the shooter made some glaring errors that predicated this event.

Neither neighborhood watch nor CCW licensing makes you a "second line" LEO. He called 911 - good move, he continued to follow in his automobile - the appropriateness of this can be debated till the cows come home, he stayed on line with the 911 dispatch - good move, he walked up to the "suspicious person" to confront or interview -- WRONG multiplied times wrong!

A citizen who is not LE can defend himself, can confront someone on or in their property or place of business, can defend a 3rd party in a situation where if they were the victim the situation justified the level of defense --------- but any level or form of pursuit just nullified your defense unless your legal level of authorization is equal to or exceeds the level of pursuit you employed (usually, but not always, LE on some level).

[John81]

I agree that this should not be played as a race factor (there is a town 17 miles from here that if I was there in the evening it would arouse concern and suspicion because I'm not Mexican -- not because they are racist but because my presence would be considered out of line with their normal evening setting).

We don't have all the info; with what we do have, the shooter made some glaring errors that predicated this event.

Neither neighborhood watch nor CCW licensing makes you a "second line" LEO. He called 911 - good move, he continued to follow in his automobile - the appropriateness of this can be debated till the cows come home, he stayed on line with the 911 dispatch - good move, he walked up to the "suspicious person" to confront or interview -- WRONG multiplied times wrong!

A citizen who is not LE can defend himself, can confront someone on or in their property or place of business, can defend a 3rd party in a situation where if they were the victim the situation justified the level of defense --------- but any level or form of pursuit just nullified your defense unless your legal level of authorization is equal to or exceeds the level of pursuit you employed (usually, but not always, LE on some level).

That's a pretty good assessment based upon what I've heard in the news.

It seems the shooter was worried the guy would get away and was more intent on making sure that didn't happen than following good procedure. Even the 911 operator told him to stay back.

No doubt much wrong was done and I doubt we will ever hear the whole story. Either the shooter will face no charges because of the self-defense law in Florida, or there will be such a push by the race baiters he'll be charged whether he should be or not.

[OLD fashioned preacher]

He probably will not get self-defense to hold since he left the car in pursuit (doesn't have to be a chase) of an individual who has not committed a crime and seems to be seeking to leave.

[John81]

He probably will not get self-defense to hold since he left the car in pursuit (doesn't have to be a chase) of an individual who has not committed a crime and seems to be seeking to leave.

From what they were saying on the news, the way the Florida law is written, regardless of the circumstances, if he felt threatened he has the legal right to shoot to kill.

It's really hard to tell now since the media and race baiters are so involved.

[Crushmaster]

Federal officials are investigating the incident to see if there was a hate crime that would allow them to prosecute.

Typically murdering someone (if it's a murder at all) is not done out of love, so...That's just plain ridiculous.

Looks like a very confusing story...
God bless,
Joel ><>.

[John81]

Typically murdering someone (if it's a murder at all) is not done out of love, so...That's just plain ridiculous.

Looks like a very confusing story...
God bless,
Joel ><>.

Well, according to the feds and PC crowd, certain crimes are worse if certain kinds of "hate" are involved.

The feds have no jurisdiction in this case unless they can call it a racial hate crime. Of course, constitutionally speaking, even in that case they don't really have any jurisdiction, they just take it.

It's a messed up case. From some of what has been said on the news, this seems like a high crime area where a lot of the criminals get away and this neighborhood watch guy was fed up. Not an excuse to act stupid or wrongly, but that seems to be a factor.

At the same time, isn't it telling that when blacks commit crimes against whites and call out all kinds of racial slurs, it's almost always excused and not considered a hate crime. However, if anyone of any race says anything even remotely racial while interacting with a black person, it's automatically a hate crime.

[JerryNumbers]

Perhaps not, but it looks to be that this was uncalled for, & if the man had obeyed the police when he called them, it would not have happened.

Of course we have not enough fact to make a good judgment who was in the wrong.

[OLD fashioned preacher]

The problem is that if he saw a movement or object that he believed posed an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm (even though it was later determined not to be what was initially believed) he would be justified --- BUT, when he left his car not to go somewhere (general or specific) but to follow and overtake (pursue) the individual before an attempt of an illegal act he then greatly compromised his legal standing.

I'm not a lawyer, I am certified to train Fla. CCW applicants (not that big of a deal, NRA instructor) but also am a state certified firearms instructor for 4 other states that require 1-3 additional hours instructional time per class teaching CC, OC, and lethal force laws.

btw, he didn't talk to the police but a 911 operator -- he still should have listened

Edited March 23, 2012 by OLD fashioned

[JerryNumbers]

And most people being followed by someone banishing a gun might get scared, doing something that might be perceived as a threat.

Seems this young man was a wanttobe policeman.

If he was going to do anything, he should have just kept this young boy in his sight, from a distance.

If he was carrying iced tea, & a package of skittles, he should not be deemed a threat.

Right, the 911 operator, but he received some good advise, & not following it, he put himself in a foolish position.

That is what I gather from the few facts that been given.

[John81]

The situation was a mess and neither of them acted as best they could have.

The question they will most focus on is likely whether or not the shooter provoked the incidence. If they can prove he provoked the incidence then the Florida self defense law won't cover him. If they determine he was simply following the guy who got shot and that guy turned and confronted him, then made some threatening move or action, then the Florida self defense law will cover him.

From the evidence the police have discussed, the shooter had suffered a physical assault, but there is not really any way to tell who started that.

The foolish and inflamatory focus upon race only makes this case worse and more difficult to rightly deal with.

[JerryNumbers]

I wonder, as he followed this young man, 17 years of age is a very young man, did he have his pistol in hand, or wearing it at his side in a holster?

I figure if a person in street clothes was following me holding a pistol in hand, or in a holster on their side, I would get uneasy, even if I lived in the area. And something a person does due to such an event.

I used the word 'street clothes,' for he was not a policeman, so I suppose he was in street clothes.

One had a gun, the other does not, & the one with the gun shoots the other one. Sounds to me that the one with the gun would be doing the provoking just by having a gun, & especially if he had it in his hand. No matter what color either of them were.


I don't know, it just smells fishy to me, it sure needs check out thoroughly.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Jerry80871852

[OLD fashioned preacher]

Open carry (worn outside of clothing) is not legal in Fl. If he has already presented the firearm while "following" the young man, he has already broken Fl law.

17 is young, but I have seen 8 and 9 year olds in juvenile detention for murder

[John81]

Open carry (worn outside of clothing) is not legal in Fl. If he has already presented the firearm while "following" the young man, he has already broken Fl law.

17 is young, but I have seen 8 and 9 year olds in juvenile detention for murder

Ever notice how if the media is on the side of a 17 year old they often refer to him as a boy or child but if they are against the 17 year old they don't use those terms?

At 17 one is a young man.

One thing is for certain, you couldn't pay me enough money to live in a city.