17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #24

[ThoughtFox]

He wasn't making rounds, he was on his way to Target.

Does Crimewatch specifically state that they require everyone associated with their program to not hold CWP, and not carry a weapon ever?

I'm sure not.

This is a bit off topic, but interesting. I'm a crime watch captain for my neighborhood, and my brother's neighborhood is considering starting a crime watch program.

If you are involved with a neighborhood watch program, shouldn't you know the rules?

And do they have a website? I googled Crimewatch and got a British TV show and references to several cities, but not an overall organization. Looks like in some places the name Crimewatch is used interchangeably with Neighborhood Watch.

Here is the page for Citizens' Crime Watch of Miami-Dade County in Florida, but none of their links has any list of rules:
http://www.citizenscrimewatch.com/programs.shtml

So then I looked up Neighborhood Watch, which does have a national website.
http://www.nnwi.org/

They have a warning printed in red on the main page. I wonder if it was there before the Trayvon Martin case? (I doubt it). The part in red is their emphasis, not mine:

Our Participants Handbook states, "Always remember that your responsibility is to report crime. Do not take any risks to prevent a crime or try to make an arrest. The responsibility for apprehending criminals belongs to the police/sheriff."

Neighborhood Watch participants act as additional eyes and ears for law enforcement.
They do not take the law into their own hands.
We Look Out For Each Other is our motto.


I didn't read all the rules because you have to buy the handbook for that.

The LE representative who spoke to his Neighborhood Association said when you assign your captains, don't take the first person who busts through the door anxious to be captain. Choose your captains from long standing residents who have a gift for getting along with people. This was just before this case broke. I would guess that advice would have been helpful in the Sanford case.

Yes, it certainly would! :what:

 

[RANCH]

Need a lawyer here...

Is what she says he said admissible in court or is that considered hearsay?

That's a good question. Last night I saw different talking head lawyers go either way.

 

[grandmaj]

No, on the prosecution (legally). They have to prove otherwise. He does not have to take the stand.

Here is a link. Because he is using the Stand Your Ground law as his defense he will have to take the stand at a hearing and testify. I know it is strange but in this law the burden at this hearing is on the defense.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...n-martin-murder-case-legal-observers-say?lite

 

[mercuriod]

No, on the prosecution (legally). They have to prove otherwise. He does not have to take the stand.

Wrong, see the many posts above, showing you that you are incorrect.

 

[LinasK]

I'm not saying it's rational. I'm just giving the reason why people with a CWP carry to Target.

Do Target security folks carry guns? As many times as I've been to Target, I don't believe I've seen armed security.

I don't know, never inquired. The only problem I've ever encountered in either a regular Target store, or a Target Greatland (have both within 10 min of me), was recently when a mentally ill homeless teenager (whom I've encountered previously elsewhere around town) started harassing my daughter repeatedly demanding she thank him for complementing her. I should have reported him to security, but my daughter wanted to leave immediately, which is what we did and left our Target and continued our shopping at the Target Greatland. I have been back to my Target and have seen no signs of him since then. I'm guessing he went on to bother other people and was asked to leave...

 

[jjenny]

Here is a link. Because he is using the Stand Your Ground law as his defense he will have to take the stand at a hearing and testify. I know it is strange but in this law the burden at this hearing is on the defense.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...n-martin-murder-case-legal-observers-say?lite

When they say "he will have to" it's clearly their opinion, since defendants in US have rights and are not obligated to testify.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Nancy Grace has some guy from a radio station in FL saying Zimmerman wants to apologize to the family of Trayvon's.

Pure nonsense spin put out by Zimmerman and his lawyer.

He can't apologize to them unless he is going to admit to the guilt.

Otherwise all he can say is I am sorry for your son making me kill him.

 

[waltzingmatilda]

Here's a post by ecs5298, a WS verified Paramedic.



Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - FL 17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #17

Thanks RANCH! I was wondering about the protocol because my mom was in a bad car accident almost a year ago and she refused transport. My cousin later took her to the ER because she really needed medical care. (my mom lives in another state) Personally, I would refuse transport if I didn't feel my injury was life threatening because I don't have health ins. and those ambulance rides are quite expensive.

IDK if GZ has health ins. or not but could be a contributing factor for him refusing transport.

MOO

wm

BTW Judge STrickland is on NG right now.

 

[raeann]

When they say "he will have to" it's clearly their opinion, since defendants in US have rights and are not obligated to testify.

You are correct, it is his right. He does NOT have to testify at his own trial, however, if he plans to use the SYG defense he will have to give up that right in order to use that defense.

jmo

 

[nomoresorrow]

When they say "he will have to" it's clearly their opinion, since defendants in US have rights and are not obligated to testify.

It was said "he will have to" IF he wants to claim SYG!

 

[RANCH]

Stan Strickland on NG

http://blog.livenewschat.tv/the-nancy-grace-room/

 

[Dr.Fessel]

When they say "he will have to" it's clearly their opinion, since defendants in US have rights and are not obligated to testify.

He has to be willing to take the stand or there will be no SYG hearing. He ask for the hearing. If he does not ask for that hearing he can not claim SYG.

 

[Karmady]

California is different from Florida. Because of SYG in Florida, the burden will be on the prosecution.

I'm not absolutely certain this is true becaue I haven't actually read the cases in detail, but I believe it to be true based on what I've read. Also, I know that if GZ asserts SYG he will get a preliminary hearing to determine whether he is immune from arrest and prosecution. Although I believe it is his burden to establish that he is entitled to immunity, his burden is only a preponderance of the evidence, and not beyond a reasonable doubt. I am not quite as certain of this next part, but I also believe that that preliminary determination is to be made by the judge and not a jury. The distinction is that the statute establishes immunity from prosecution and not a defense to the murder charge.

Also, although I've seen differing opinions on this, the SYG statute includes immunity from civil suit. So if the claims against GZ are dismissed at the prelminary hearing level, or if he prevails at trial on SYG grounds, he should be immune from civil liability as well. And bearing on the HOA issue, it seems to me that if GZ was acting on their behalf or with their agency at the time of the shooting, the HOA also would be immune, or at least should prevail for that reason. I don't know whether a claim for an independent act of negligence on the part of the HOA could still prevail, though. I do know it won't stop someone from trying, though!

 

[grandmaj]

When they say "he will have to" it's clearly their opinion, since defendants in US have rights and are not obligated to testify.

Who is going to testify that his life was in imminent danger of death?

 

[mercuriod]

Not quite.
Quote:
NOTE: In Gray v. State, 13 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009), the Fifth District Court of Appeal of Florida (governing Sanford, Florida, the site of the Trayvon Martin shooting) adopted the procedures outlined above in Petersen, holding that the right to immunity from criminal prosecution afforded by Section 776.032 is to be determined by the trial court after an evidentiary proceeding in which the criminal defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 114.

Thus, under the procedures outlined in Petersen, prosecutorial immunity does not attach under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law by way of mere factual assertion. The issue is raised pre-trial through the filing of a Motion for Declaration of Immunity. To obtain such a declaration by the trial court, a hearing is held where the defendant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence his or her qualifications for immunity. This essentially reverses the burden of proof traditionally at play in a criminal case. The defense presents the evidence, shows that the statutory prerequisites have been met, and requests that the court grant the motion and appropriate relief. If the Motion is granted, the defense then files a Motion to Dismiss, as there is no longer a legal basis to proceed with the prosecution.

With regard to the Trayvon Martin case, the notion that Florida’s Stand Your Ground law prohibited the prosecution of George Zimmerman is fundamentally false. “Stand Your Ground” in no way prevents a prosecution from being initiated against an accused.


More commentary at link:
http://www.husseinandwebber.com/stand_your_ground.html

When they say "he will have to" it's clearly their opinion, since defendants in US have rights and are not obligated to testify.

Reposting Velouria's post in case you missed it. If GZ is going to try to invoke the affirmative defense of SYG, he will have to burden to prove it and will have to testify to do that.

 

[MsCharlieChan]

When I picture this, if Trayvon were afraid of GZ - that is, believed GZ intended to knife him, kidnap him, rob him, etc., and knowing that Trayvon wasn't armed, I don't think he would have verbally engaged GZ, and asked him what his problem was. If he truly feared for his safety from GZ, I think he would have broken into a run and gotten away and not forced an encounter.

I think he knew what GZ was doing, and it pissed him off so he took the first swing. I believe Trayvon knew GZ suspected him, and was following him to watch him, and so Trayvon attacked him first verbally and then physically.

That's my humble opinion only. I can't see verbally engaging someone who you are truly afraid of, if you are unarmed, if you have the chance to get away which Trayvon certainly did.

I understand what you're saying, but truth is we're all quite different. And we definitely don't know what Trayvon thought was about to happen...

Trayvon could have thought the stranger was trying to get sex from him. It happens more than you probably know, especially for nice looking boys like Trayvon. Most straight guys are VERY angered by being approached for gay sex.

I don't know, I'm just saying that we don't have a clue what Trayvon thought GZ was after. Except we can assume he felt harassed or threatened. At some point, it's illegal to make a person feel either of these ways. This is why they have the SYG law; you don't have to run or act submissive.

A strange guy was following me once, while I walked alone in my neighborhood early one evening. He had originally walked past me, then U-turned and I could hear his sneakers lightly hitting the sidewalk, coming too quickly behind me.

I sensed he was either about to rape me or rob me.

Maybe I should have been polite and asked him sweetly if I could help him. Maybe I should have run like the dickens. But I'm cut from a different cloth from you... I went into an angry, aggressive mode...

I turn around like a mad woman and started rambling through my purse, as if I was about to pull out a gun. (I had a tube of lipstick and my apt. keys, that was about it!!)

I started moving fast toward the guy while fishing in my purse, hollering "I will KILL you. I will KILL YOUUUUU!!!"

The guy started running away from ME! :woohoo:

I actually started chasing after HIM for a few feet... and then I came to my senses and stopped chasing him. lol

Maybe he thought I shouldn't be in my own neighborhood. Maybe I should have respectfully waited to learn why this creep was following me, coming up behind me fast in the dark on a lonely street.

But all I could think to do is try to shock the guy with some "reverse psychology."

Trayvon may have felt he was in a dangerous situation similar to mine. If Trayvon suspected a racist bully or whatever was following him and about to attack him, that guy deserves the same treatment as a rapist or robber, IMO. It is equally illegal to pose all of these types of threats.

 

[JeannaT]

If you are involved with a neighborhood watch program, shouldn't you know the rules?

And do they have a website? I googled Crimewatch and got a British TV show and references to several cities, but not an overall organization. Looks like in some places the name Crimewatch is used interchangeably with Neighborhood Watch.

Here is the page for Citizens' Crime Watch of Miami-Dade County in Florida, but none of their links has any list of rules:
http://www.citizenscrimewatch.com/programs.shtml

So then I looked up Neighborhood Watch, which does have a national website.
http://www.nnwi.org/

They have a warning printed in red on the main page. I wonder if it was there before the Trayvon Martin case? (I doubt it). The part in red is their emphasis, not mine:

Our Participants Handbook states, "Always remember that your responsibility is to report crime. Do not take any risks to prevent a crime or try to make an arrest. The responsibility for apprehending criminals belongs to the police/sheriff."

Neighborhood Watch participants act as additional eyes and ears for law enforcement.
They do not take the law into their own hands.
We Look Out For Each Other is our motto.


I didn't read all the rules because you have to buy the handbook for that.



Yes, it certainly would! :what:

There aren't "rules" that were expressed to me. I certainly haven't violated anything that Crime Watch stands for. I'm basically a watchful eye, and if people have suspicions they can call LE or me, and I can call LE and on rare occasions there is a neighborhood email alert that several cars have been broken in to or there are exceptionally aggressive door to door salesmen that don't appear to be legit. That kind of thing. There's not a list of "rules" that come with the position. We have four captains in different sections in my neighborhood and all of us hardly have ever done anything at all with Crime Watch. The neighborhood signs themselves are a deterrent.

 

[beach]

When they say "he will have to" it's clearly their opinion, since defendants in US have rights and are not obligated to testify.

By claiming he was within his rights citing the SYG law, it will be an affirmative defense. The burden of proof switches. He is going to have to testify and present his case that his actions fall under the SYG law.

 

[JennyMominRI]

Would you turn around and challenge them verbally if it's highly reasonable you could outrun them and safety was 70 yards away?

I certainly wouldn't want to give the crazy guy who is following me the location of my home

 

[Phoenixfla]

<modsnip>

First and foremost, he wasn't a "watchman." A watchman is:

watch·man/&#712;wäCHm&#601;n/
Noun:
A man employed to look after an empty building, esp. at night.
A member of a body of people employed to keep watch in a town at night.

Secondly, he wasn't supposed to be making "rounds."

Lastly, he was not supposed to carry his gun.

All of these issues are addressed within the article at the link. Zimmerman was nothing but a bully who thought he was a man by carrying his gun strapped on his waistband.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46830953/#.T4i1m6s1_TC


~jmo~

Adrienne,

I understand he was not a watchman. I was just using the terminology Elly May used in her post. I was asking to provide me with a link to a statue that says that it is illegal to carry a gun and/or that you can not follow someone that you suspect may be up to no good.

I completely understand that the police recommend that you dont carry a gun and that you dont follow someone, BUT that does not make it against the law. It may have not recommend and it may have been a dumb thing to do but that is seperate and apart from being illegal.

You may say that it contributes to his state of mind, and you may be right, but its still not illegal.