Posted on 03/25/2012 12:42:39 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
The Justice Department should look into the “Stand Your Ground” laws that kept Florida police from arresting the man who shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, New York’s senior senator said Sunday.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) said he wrote the Justice Department asking them to expand their review of Martin’s death to include the impact of Florida’s and other states “Stand Your Ground” Laws.
“Stand Your Ground laws is a whole new concept,” Schumer told CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “Some people call it shoot first, ask questions later,” he said.
The laws generally grant immunity to anyone who uses deadly force, inside or outside of his home, if the shooter can reasonably claim he was defending himself.
“The laws all passed very, very quickly and I think the states who passed them, if they find the real facts, may decide to repeal them,” Schumer said, noting a survey of 13 cases by the Florida Sun-Sentinel that found 12 of the victims had not been armed.
Florida was the first of 21 states to pass such laws since 2005. The Sunshine State’s version allows police on the scene to decide whether they believe a shooter’s claims of self-defense.
In Trayvon Martin’s case, police have said they did the right thing by not charging 28-year-old George Zimmerman, a member of a citizens' watch, with the shooting.
Court-watchers say in other cases, cops make an arrest and then let the courts figure out if the use of deadly force was legally justified.
Schumer said he wants Justice officials to see whether these new laws “actually increase violence rather than decrease violence, and whether they actually prevent law enforcement from prosecuting cases where real crime has been committed.”
Zimmerman told police Martin attacked him after he had given up chasing the boy and he was returning to his truck. He had a bloody nose and blood on the back of his head, according to police.
Martin's family doubt Zimmerman's story and argue if the shooter was black there is no doubt he would have been arrested.
Yes...I paid them...I quit in December...Checked out, trimmed down and am minimally on the grid now. Financially, I am now one of their ‘constituents’.
I think the government can get some of the money that it needs by taxing the EBTs, the EITCs, the Advance EITC payments, the AFDCs, the WICS, the SNAPs, the Section 8s, the Pell Grants, the HARPs and HARP IIs, the SSI, the SSDI, and on and on and on....that oughta do it, huh?
It seems Eric Holder is the entire legislature and governor of all 57 states.
It's self-defense.
You just try "reviewing" the self-defense laws.
I dare you.
Quite frankly if some strange man is following me in his truck, then stops and comes after me...he isn’t walking away. He will have picked the wrong 5ft. 100lb chick to mess with.
So if Zimmerman had been tailing me, attempted to stop me, he would be the one that is dead right now. He would not have had a chance to “go back to his truck.”
What crime did this kid commit, that warranted Zimmerman tailing him?
Which raises the question does the dispatchers orders to Zimmerman mean he violated an order to stop?
“Regarding the “personal errand’ we need more. Where was he and when was he there. Did he perhaps encounter Martin on that personal errand?”
It’s in the police report. There were plenty of threads with links yesterday, but I’m not hunting them down for you. As for the kid being “chased down,” he certainly had every right to run from a stranger. If Zimmerman grabbed him, he had the right to fight back, however if someone grabbed his arm and asked what he is doing, that still isn’t grounds for the kid to pummel him. “What are you doing” is a legitimate question and doesn’t indicate that Zimmerman was threatening kidnapping or bodily harm. All the kid had to do was say, “I’m going to a friend’s right over there. Leave me alone.” But, we don’t know if Zimmerman caught up with him or lost him and was indeed returning to his SUV and Trayvon saw an opportunity to blind side him. But as have been obvious people on either side can speculate scenarios to support their side, absent of fact, and stir the division. One of the few things we do know is that both are guilty of acting stupidly.
What crime did Zim commit by tailing him?
This is a tragedy. A young man lost his life.
Neither one is totally innocent. Both made aggressions towards each other. If Trayvon had a gun it would have been Zimmerman that got shot.
Would the Black flash mob have been formed if Trayvon had shot Zimmerman? Would it?
Black folks are being played like a fiddle once again. They really don't care how many are killed or become murderers.
“Which raises the question does the dispatchers orders to Zimmerman mean he violated an order to stop?”
That was answered in the City Manager’s statement here:
http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf
...The call taker’s suggestion is not a lawful order that Mr. Zimmerman would be required to follow. Zimmerman’s statement was that he had lost sight of Trayvon and
was returning to his truck to meet the police officer when he says he was attacked by
Trayvon....”
Here is the police report:
http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin%20Lakes%20Shooting%20Initial%20Report.pdf
And the 911 calls:
http://sanfordfl.gov/investigation/trayvon_martin.html
Well, the agitators who have made this case into a cause célèbre have certainly tried to give the impression that Zimmerman's story was not investigated, but that simply is not true.
It is certainly possible that Zimmerman was "advancing on the kid," but let's keep a few known facts in mind:
First, Zimmerman did not call 911, he called the non-emergency line.
Second, when the operator suggested that "we don't need you to (follow)" Zimmerman replied "Okay." He then remained on the line for almost two more minutes, during which he said he could no longer see Martin, and did not know where "this kid" went.
Third, the account of Martin's girlfriend indicates that it was Martin who initiated the conversation with Zimmerman. We still don't know how they came face to face, but this account, given by somebody with no motive to support Zimmerman, nevertheless does not contradict his claim, and tends to corroborate it, at least partially.
Imagine yourself as a teenager walking home at night, and seeing some guy following you in his car. He continues to follow you even as you start running. The kids probably thinking Zimmerman’s a child molester trying to get him into his car, perhaps if Zimmerman catches up to him, he fights back. Then Zimmerman uses that as he justification for shooting the kid. This is as equally plausible as Zimmerman’s story. Unfortunately, both sides may have political motivation for attacking or defending what happened.
There are indeed multiple scenarios we can speculate on that are not contradicted by the facts we know at this time. I agree that there are many whose defense of Zimmerman has been fairly knee-jerk, and has sadly devolved also into attempts to demonize Martin. But there is nothing at all wrong in defending against a rush to judgment against Zimmerman, because it is entirely plausible that he committed no crime.
If you listen to the entire call, you will hear that after the operator suggests that "we don't need you to (follow)" Zimmerman replies "Okay." He then remains on the line for almost two more minutes, during which he says he can no longer see Martin, and does not know where "this kid" went.
Less than three minutes after the end of the call, Martin was dead. Now, you may think Zimmerman "stalked" Martin, but there are no facts to support that speculation, and it is equally plausible that it happened the way Zimmerman claims it did.
I have three words for you Slumer, sic:
GFY
Florida Stalking Law §784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties. 1997. Amended 2003. (1) As used in this section, the term: (a) HARASS means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose. (b) COURSE OF CONDUCT means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests. (c) CREDIBLE THREAT means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person. (d) CYBERSTALK means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose. (2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or their child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (4) Any person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person's property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (5) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a minor under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
1. Following and observing is NOT stalking. And it is not illegal. In fact, if there is a suspicious character in my neighborhood, myself and many of my neighbors will be watching him or her.
2. Zimmerman was on his way back to the vehicle when Martin attacked him. That's on the tape also.
3. Zimmerman has the right to self-defense, as we all do. It is a GOD-GIVEN right. According to the initial witness and to the description of Zimmerman's condition, he was on the ground being beaten by Martin when the deadly shot was fired. But for the shot, Zimmerman would possibly be dead now (though I bet there wouldn't be an angry mob of White Power mobsters putting a $10,000 bounty on Martin's head).
Evidently, Fast & Furious was only part of Obama's "under the radar" anti-gun plans.
It has been the states that have passed Concealed Carry, Castle Doctrine, Stand your ground and other ways the honest citizens can protect themselves.
Zman is the Watch personell. He had every right to find out what someone was doing at night in the rain in his neighborhood. It's not stalking. It's protecting one's territory.
What was Trayvee's real deal?
What kind of parent sends their innocent child out at night in the rain for skittles. Are you looking to buy a bridge or something?
Think with your head, not your heart.
You are SO full of crap.
Learn the facts of the case before spouting this nonsense.
Child molester? Really? Martin DIDN'T LIVE THERE. He was taking a shortcut through a GATED COMMUNITY. Zimmerman LIVED there. People have the right to ask why people are in their community.
People like you, who go along with the media's explanations for everything, are why they have so much power.
Yeah, in NYC you are just supposed to give armed criminals all of your money, the keys to your home, take out the vasoline and turn around and drop your trou.
Yeah...let’s all be like NewYork.
What an a-hole.
Lay this non-sense at the feet of George Zimmerman. He’s the fool that can single handedly stop the stand your ground movement.
Actually, no I can’t.
If he was neighborhood watch...why doesn’t he know this kid and family? We have our own block watch here and we sure as heck know everyone and all the kids and all their friends.
And like my original post said, if he had pulled that kind of stunt with me he would have been dead.
I am thinking with my head and I’ll be darned if some creep tailing me in his SUV and then chasing after me is going to get a pass.
What the heck is wrong with you thinking Zman had some sort of right to jump out of his truck and chase this kid? His only obligation was observation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.