Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 50

Definition of VIGILANTE
: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice

On April 22 2012 00:25 Myles wrote:

Actually, the one of the points of the stand your ground law is that you don't have to wait to be attacked if you feel you're under immediate threat. Being followed at night by an unknown person can certainly qualify as feeling under threat.

On April 22 2012 01:48 Tehs Tehklz wrote:


Man, read the actual law.

On April 22 2012 03:29 Myles wrote:

Yea, first line of the law.

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

By following him and getting out of the car after dark it's possible to reasonably conclude that Trayvon felt immanent threat and was justified in attacking first, under the law.

Personally, I think it's a crap part of the law that really needs revised.

On April 22 2012 03:35 dAPhREAk wrote:

thats self defense law. it has nothing to do with the so-called "stand your ground" law. this has been the formulation of self defense since before america was even born likely.

stand your ground law is controversial because of the lack of a duty to retreat, which you arent even discussing, nor have you quoted it.

On April 22 2012 03:39 Myles wrote:

From my understanding, many self defense laws require you to actually be under attack and/or retreating from what you think is a threat. While I didn't specifically say retreat in that post, I think requiring retreat in cases where you believe you would be under attack would be a revision.

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.

If the defendant [was not engaged in an unlawful activity and] was attacked in any place where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand [his] [her] ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if [he] [she] reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [another] or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

On April 22 2012 03:42 dAPhREAk wrote:

you left out the portion related to duty to retreat, which is the controversial part of the law. every state has a similar self defense law; few have no duty to retreat.

On April 22 2012 03:46 Myles wrote:

I wasn't talking about deadly force, I was talking about Trayvon potentially being justified in attacking him first. Since I'm sure you're remember our earlier discussion, I also think that if Zimmerman was ambushed and everything he says is true, he is justified in deadly force even though I personally think by following and potentially confronting him he should be guilty of negligent manslaughter, but the law might not agree with me there.

On April 22 2012 03:49 dAPhREAk wrote:

well, you confused me when you cited standard (non-controversial) self defense law that has been in place for centuries, and then said "Personally, I think it's a crap part of the law that really needs revised."

On April 22 2012 01:37 dAPhREAk wrote:
people. stop calling him a vigilante. even if he did pursue trayvon, which is not actually known for sure, thats not vigilantism. he called the cops, which is the exact opposite of what vigilantes do. there is no reason to believe that he intended to punish trayvon, which is also necessary for him to be a vigilante.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vigilante

On April 22 2012 04:44 Tor wrote:


It could be argued Zimmerman fulfills the criteria of "a self-appointed doer of justice". It doesn't necessarily mean he overstepped his legal bounds, but if one cannot argue that Zimmerman was a vigilante than what is the point of this thread? Just because he may not have broken the law, does not mean his actions were justified. We should not come to this thread to determine guilt, but rather to discuss the implications of the circumstances surrounding the incident.

Is it right to confront a hooded individual in your neighbourhood while armed? What does that imply about the person who does the confronting? What does that imply about society when we allow individuals of limited authority to promote a conflict? Where does the line between surveillance and protection get drawn between vigilanteism?

If Trayvon were to hide behind a fence and jump Zimmerman than obviously Zimmerman has the right to defend himself. But if Zimmerman were to confront Trayvon, at what point does Zimmermans actions begin to impede on Trayvons rights?

Honestly, the entire notion of Zimmermans guilt resides on whether his acts stepped over the line between deterent and active vigilante. If there is no doubt in your mind that Zimmerman isn't a vigilante than you've made up your mind on the case. Perhaps you are correct, and the jury will clear Zimmerman of all charges, but until that time suppressing the notion of Zimmerman as a vigilante is actually inhibiting construction discussion.

Granted, merely stating Zimmerman is a vigilante and should goto jail is pointless and detracts from discussion, but so is stating Zimmerman is obviously in the right to defend himself (hint: nothing about the case is obvious, nor straightforward). So if you're going to harp on an uninformed post, why not harp on Zaqwe's ignorant and pointless post as well?

On April 22 2012 00:57 floor exercise wrote:

The end result of someone playing vigilante to keep his gated neighborhood safe is that an innocent person died. His actions made the neighborhood less safe. Why would you be all for more patrols like this? It didn't work, the results were the exact opposite of what was allegedly the original goal: making a community safer.

And you think more would-be vigilantes should arm themselves and roam the streets? Why?

On April 22 2012 05:03 dAPhREAk wrote:

if zimmerman pursued trayvon for the purpose of inflicting justice on him then i would agree he is a vigilante. however, there is no evidence of that.

as i understand the circumstances, zimmerman was returning from the store and saw someone suspicious in his neighborhood (that had previous burglaries). he apparently is always armed for whatever reason. its not like he armed himself and then went on patrols around his neighborhood. people seem to confuse the facts. zimmerman meeting trayvon was just happenstance, not some planned out event. since it is legal for him to carry a weapon, the fact that he was armed really is meaningless.

it impedes on trayvon's rights once zimmerman does something illegal. walking around your neighborhood; following people; asking people why they are in your gated neighborhood; etc. are not illegal.

there is no evidence he is a vigilante. people are misusing the word. vigilante implies illegal activity, but people are referring to legal activity and saying he is a vigilante. it makes no sense. i dont understand why you think i've made up my mind. i've made it pretty clear that i think manslaughter is the likely result, but it will depend on the evidence presented at trial. i've been trying to get people to think about it without jumping to conclusions.

when zaqwe misstates the law or misstates the facts, i will harp on him. when he expresses opinions (whether i agree or not), i will comment if he is left unchallenged. people have not been shy about arguing with him so i dont feel the need.

On April 22 2012 07:13 Tor wrote:


This is a better argument than your previous "please don't call him a vigilante", which implied that discussing vigilanteism is out of bounds.

Given that Zimmerman called the police, I see no reason Zimmerman had the "right" to confront Martin, whether legal or not, this is where the ambiguity of vigilante comes from. It is an ideological difference between believing Zimmerman should be able to fulfill the role that the police should be doing (and were about to do). At the very least, why didn't Zimmerman just follow Martin without confronting him? The police were on the way were they not? This disregard of the police's authority represents Zimmermans vigilante behaviour. There is a distinct reason why legal-rational authority is divided the way it is, and Zimmerman, in my opinion, over-stepped his bounds assuming he decided to confront Martin, rather than to act merely as reasonable surveillance.

To clarify, Zimmerman may have had the legal right to confront Martin, he did not have the authority to do anything once he confronted him. Since it could be argued Zimmermans motive in confronting Martin was to fulfill the role of the police it could be argued that the confrontation was an act of vigilanteism (ie doing the polices job). Note that this perspective is ideologically based, not legally, which is why one could claim Zimmerman as a vigilante despite Zimmermans acts being legal.

This is not to say that Zimmerman is guilty of anything, but simply that his confrontation of Martin that night could be viewed as vigilanteism. Though it would seem like an over-zealous impulse, rather than pre-meditated vigilanteism that lead to the conflict that night, that impulse never-the-less could be viewed as an act of vigilanteism.

On April 22 2012 07:13 Tor wrote:


This is a better argument than your previous "please don't call him a vigilante", which implied that discussing vigilanteism is out of bounds.

Given that Zimmerman called the police, I see no reason Zimmerman had the "right" to confront Martin, whether legal or not, this is where the ambiguity of vigilante comes from. It is an ideological difference between believing Zimmerman should be able to fulfill the role that the police should be doing (and were about to do). At the very least, why didn't Zimmerman just follow Martin without confronting him? The police were on the way were they not? This disregard of the police's authority represents Zimmermans vigilante behaviour. There is a distinct reason why legal-rational authority is divided the way it is, and Zimmerman, in my opinion, over-stepped his bounds assuming he decided to confront Martin, rather than to act merely as reasonable surveillance.

To clarify, Zimmerman may have had the legal right to confront Martin, he did not have the authority to do anything once he confronted him. Since it could be argued Zimmermans motive in confronting Martin was to fulfill the role of the police it could be argued that the confrontation was an act of vigilanteism (ie doing the polices job). Note that this perspective is ideologically based, not legally, which is why one could claim Zimmerman as a vigilante despite Zimmermans acts being legal.

This is not to say that Zimmerman is guilty of anything, but simply that his confrontation of Martin that night could be viewed as vigilanteism. Though it would seem like an over-zealous impulse, rather than pre-meditated vigilanteism that lead to the conflict that night, that impulse never-the-less could be viewed as an act of vigilanteism.

On April 22 2012 03:49 dAPhREAk wrote:

well, you confused me when you cited standard (non-controversial) self defense law that has been in place for centuries, and then said "Personally, I think it's a crap part of the law that really needs revised."

"Stand your ground" has now become a lightning rod of controversy. Unfortunately, the public discourse about the Trayvon Martin killing has distracted from what is truly important. At its core, this case is about law, public safety and whether a citizen's invocation of the historic right of homicidal self-defense satisfied strict legal requirements. We now have an opportunity to educate the public - a public increasingly confused about the right of self-defense - on the law's true meaning.

The right of self-defense has deep roots in the Anglo-American legal tradition and has always permitted an individual facing the threat of imminent death or grievous bodily harm to "stand his ground" when retreat was not an option. The last phrase is key: Standing one's ground was always viewed as an exception to the requirement that if feasible, retreat was a better option than killing someone. This exception to the normal retreat requirement was derived from the underlying rationale of self-defense: Imperative necessity is the only justification for taking the law into your own hands for self-protection. Self-defense is legal justification for conduct that is normally unlawful, so self-defense is justified only when a person believes he has no option but to use force, and only when that belief is reasonable.

Florida, like Texas, altered the retreat element of self-defense. According to "stand-your-ground" laws, retreat is no longer required. But, "stand your ground" does not modify the other requirements of self-defense, requirements that establish the absolute necessity of taking the law into your own hands. It is only after an individual faces an imminent, unlawful threat of death or grievous bodily harm that retreat or "stand your ground" even becomes relevant.

First, an individual must face a threat so great and so immediate that only instant resort to self-help can reasonably prevent it - that is, self-defense is the only option. Second, if the individual claiming self-defense was the first to use violence in an affray, self-defense is almost always invalid. Third, even when standing your ground is permitted, the amount of force used in response to the threat must be proportional - no more than is reasonably necessary to eliminate the threat.

Perhaps most importantly, all these judgments of necessity are assessed objectively - would any reasonable person in the same situation have acted the same way? Subjective judgment - what the person may have actually thought was necessary - does not dictate whether what he did was legally justified. The objective reasonableness of what happened is the critical decision left to a jury.

The singular focus on "stand your ground" in this case distracts from the incident's real and important lessons. In a society where possession of firearms is an established right, it is imperative that citizens genuinely understand the law of self-defense. The decision to prosecute George Zimmerman will contribute substantially to public understanding - an important consequence of any high-profile case. No one knows exactly what happened that tragic night in Florida. What we do know is that an unarmed 17-year-old walking home from a convenience store was shot and killed by an adult man who suspected wrongdoing and was following him. George Zimmerman claims the shooting was justified within the meaning of the law.

Did George Zimmerman have a right to stand his ground? Yes, only if he did not provoke the confrontation by his own unlawful aggression; only if he faced an unlawful threat of death or grievous bodily harm; if the threat was so imminent that homicidal self-defense was his only option; and only if any other reasonable person in the same situation would have made the same decision - that killing Trayvon Martin was absolutely necessary. If any of those answers is no, then George Zimmerman is guilty of criminal homicide.

The prosecutor's decision to charge George Zimmerman with second degree murder was appropriate and justified given the current information. It is also the only way to properly vindicate the balance between the normal expectation that citizens refrain from using violence against one another, and the very limited exception of absolute necessity that justifies such violence. The case's truly important lesson begins now: Before you stand your ground, all the other critical elements of self-defense must be satisfied.

That lesson might be learned now precisely because a prosecutor stood her ground.

Corn is a professor of law at South Texas College of Law.

On April 22 2012 08:42 Millitron wrote:

He didn't have the right to confront him? So what you're saying is that he didn't have the right to talk to him? Because thats all he tried to do.

On April 22 2012 10:40 ranshaked wrote:
Question: Last year I was in a similar situation. I was at a red light and a bunch of black males were hounding and being disrespectful to a woman in the car behind me. I said a few choice words to them along the lines of "shut up and have some respect" I then was punches in the face while at the red light through the window. I immediately got out of the vehicle and confronted the opposer. At that point several of his friends surrounded me. I was punched several more times until my friend got out of the car and opened the trunk. He pulled out a baseball bat at which the men retreated.

If I had pulled a gun and shot the offender would I have been justified under the stand your ground law? I live in Orlando Florida near Sanford. I ended up needsjng many stitches as well as a large hospital bill.

On April 22 2012 10:46 dAPhREAk wrote:

pulled out a gun at what point in the events? what was your mental state immediately before shooting (did you fear that without shooting that you would be killed or suffer great bodily injury)?