FL 17 y/o Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #12

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
The 2011 Florida Statutes


Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
View Entire Chapter
CHAPTER 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
776.031 Use of force in defense of others.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.
776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.
776.051 Use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition.
776.06 Deadly force.
776.07 Use of force to prevent escape.
776.08 Forcible felony.
776.085 Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.
 
How do you know he didn't call his dad on the cell phone to ask him?

Or got permission before his dad left on his date? It really has no relevance to why Trayvon was killed by George Zimmerman.

Not a criticism of you, but I think questioning the entire trip to the 7-Eleven is a sidewise effort to smear the victim. (I just don't wish to engage some of the members who keep bringing it up.)
 
If that is what people did then the criminals would have a field day knowing that everybody just called if they saw someone stealing people's stuff, that's why we have the stealing going on now. If all states allowed everybody "law abiding citizen" to carry there would be much less crime. jmo


AGREE and it is why I hate this new law it s not just, unless coupled with a thorough investigation.
Anyone can say this is what happened and be done with it :maddening:
 
I bet your dad was traumatized :(
According to GZ's friend he was crying and shaken for days.
Yes, I have heard that as well.

He was remosreful - sorry even.

Howver, he has yet to call Trayvon's mom or dad and tell them he's sorry.


So, is he sorry he killed someone - or is he sorry that he might now face serious consequences?




JMHO
 
Yes, I have heard that as well.

He was remosreful - sorry even.

Howver, he has yet to call Trayvon's mom or dad and tell them he's sorry.


So, is he sorry he killed someone - or is he sorry that he might now face serious consequences?




JMHO
BBM

How many times has a person involved in a homicide investigation contacted the victims' relatives for any reason before trial? I just don't think that's a reasonable expectation, to be honest.
 
Years ago, in a certain Sunshiney state, in a town that may translate into Rat's Mouth, my father managed a bar/restaurant. One night, the bar was held up, including customers. My dad had a gun in the register, and when the guy shot at him, my dad shot back-and was the better marksman. The guy died. My father wasn't charged, but the event haunted him for years. He never spoke to me of the incident at all, but my aunt told me of the phone calls to her, my father sobbing. He did what was right, but it was not without horrible scars. I'd rather not kill someone if it can be avoided. But that's just me.

It does leave scars. And in your dad's case the man was actively committing a crime and using deadly force...he had no choice and that is understandable. He may have saved someone else's life as well. This is what the SYG law is suppose to do. jmo
 
Originally Posted by OneLove<br />
With all due respect, there is a HUGE distance between whether I would hire a person or whether I would judge that person I wouldn't hire is a criminal . I have personally interviewed hundreds of people and HIRED and supervised roughly a hundred and not ONE that I wouldn't hire due to the way they "present" did I ever come CLOSE to thinking was a criminal .
<br />
<br />

Songline responded:
NOT ME....I need an arena that represents a firm in a most professional way.<br />
I do not want inked, pierced, or any other rebellious statements.<br />
Now the Music industry – that is a bit different. But it is not where I am, <br />
business industry is not keen on any of that.<br />
<br />
To bad so often they think it is cool. then they try to get a job...

ONELOVE:

Songline, let me say this again in a different way: I have interviewed and hired many people. When 'presentation' has been an important part of the position, I TOO have had to not hire certain people. Never ONCE in choosing to not hire a person did I EVER assume due to their piercings, tats, gold teeth, or fashion choices, or skin color, that they were DEPRAVED THUGS up to no good.

That is what BIAS is. And yes, we are seeing quite a LOT of that here. Hence many of the extremely frustrated people who are coming to believe that it is a waste of effort to engage in rational conversation such as I have been doing. Many are coming to feel that violence is the only way to effect change. I am beginning to understand their position.
 
Hmmmm that makes him a crazy dud, itchng to shoot someone...:what::waitasec:

Your words, not mine. I'm just responding to your post that the neighborhood watch thing was not all-consuming to him. I'm wondering about that. Haven't seen one FB post, Tweet, web posting of any kind, not one word from his father, brother, so-called family friend JM, neighbor friend FT, about what he was into other than LE stuff. All they say is he was a great, loving guy. Again, nothing about his interests, aspirations, hobbies, likes and dislikes -- unless they are tied to LE. This doesn't make him a crazy dude itching to shoot someone, necessarily -- words you snarkily tried to put into my mouth. It does say he's very, very, very, very into this LE stuff.
 
This is the condensed version put out by the Florida Department of Agriculture.
Never display a handgun to gain “leverage” in an argument, even if it isn’t loaded or you never intend to use it.
The amount of force that you use to defend yourself must not be excessive under these circumstances:
This pamphlet was prepared by the Division of Licensing in an attempt to answer some of the most frequently asked questions about the use of deadly force for lawful self-defense. Included are examples of real situations involving the legal consequences of the use of deadly force.
Q. WHAT KINDS OF WEAPONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CONCEALED WEAPONS LAW?
A. Section 790.06, Florida Statutes, defines a concealed weapon or firearm as a handgun, electronic weapon or device, tear gas gun, knife or billie. This pamphlet emphasizes handguns, because they are one of the most commonly used weapons for self-defense.
Q. IS THERE A FLORIDA LAW REGARDING THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE?
A. Yes, see Chapter 776, Florida Statutes, entitled, “Justifiable Use of Force.” Section 776.06, defines deadly force as force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm. When you carry a handgun, you possess a weapon of deadly force. The law considers even an unloaded gun to be a deadly weapon when it is pointed at someone.
Q. WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO CARRY A FIREARM “CONCEALED?” DO I HAVE TO CARRY MY FIREARM CONCEALED OR CAN I CARRY IT OPENLY?
A. The law defines a concealed firearm as any firearm “carried on or about a person in such a manner as to conceal it from the ordinary sight of another person.” Moreover, section 790.053, F. S., specifically prohibits the open carrying of a weapon. This section of law was amended by the Legislature in 2011, however, to provide that a person who is licensed to carry a concealed firearm
is not in violation of the law if the firearm is “briefly and openly” displayed to the ordinary sight of another person, “unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self- defense.”
Q. IF LICENSED, CAN I CARRY MY CONCEALED WEAPON OR FIREARM ANYWHERE?
A. No. When you apply for the license, you must sign an oath that you have read and understand Section 790.06, Florida Statutes, which lists several places where you may not carry a concealed weapon or firearm. You should read subsection 12 for the complete list, but some examples are football, baseball, and basketball games (college or professional) and bars. A cool head and even temper can keep handgun carriers out of trouble. You should never carry a gun into a situation where you might get angry.
Q. WHAT IF I AM IN MY VEHICLE?
A. A person has no duty to retreat in his lawfully occupied vehicle against a person who was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering or had unlawfully and forcefully entered an occupied vehicle or had unlawfully and forcefully removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the occupied vehicle.
Q. WHEN CAN I USE MY HANDGUN TO PROTECT MYSELF?
A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm or trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary, or kidnapping. Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, assault, manslaughter, or worse.
•
• •
Never use deadly force in self-defense unless you are afraid that if you don’t, you will be killed or seriously injured; Verbal threats never justify your use of deadly force;
If you think someone has a weapon and will use it unless you kill them, be sure you are right and are not overreacting to the situation.
The law permits you to carry a concealed weapon or firearm for self-defense. Carrying a concealed weapon or firearm does not make you a freelance policeman or a “good samaritan.”
Never carry your concealed weapon or firearm into any place where the statute prohibits carrying it.
This pamphlet is not a complete summary of all the statutes and court opinions on the use of deadly force. Because Florida law specifies that the carrying of a concealed weapon or firearm is for lawful self-defense, the Division of Licensing has not attempted to summarize the body of law regarding lawful defense of property. This pamphlet is not intended as legal advice. Every self-defense case has its own unique set of facts, and it is unwise to attempt to predict how a particular case would be decided. It is clear, however, that the law protects people who keep their tempers under control and use deadly force only as a last resort.
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Division of Licensing P.O. Box 6687 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6687 www.mylicensesite.com
DACS-P-00090 Rev. 09/11
Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.
Q. WHAT IF SOMEONE IS ATTACKING ME IN MY OWN HOME?
A. The courts have created an exception to the duty to retreat called the “castle doctrine.” Under the castle doctrine, you need not retreat from your own home to avoid using deadly force against an assailant. The castle doctrine applies if you are attacked in your own home, whether by an intruder or an invited guest.
Q. WHAT IF I AM IN MY PLACE OF BUSINESS AND SOMEONE COMES IN TO ROB ME? DO I HAVE TO RETREAT BEFORE USING DEADLY FORCE?
A. The castle doctrine also applies when you are in your place of business. If you are in danger of death or great bodily harm or you are trying to prevent a forcible felony, you do not have to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense.
Q. WHAT IF SOMEONE USES THREATENING LANGUAGE TO ME SO THAT I AM AFRAID FOR MY LIFE OR SAFETY?
A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person, which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat.
The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary.
Q. WHAT IF I SEE A CRIME BEING COMMITTED?
A. A license to carry a concealed weapon or firearm does not make you a free-lance policeman. But, as stated earlier, deadly force is justified if you are trying to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. The use of deadly force must be absolutely necessary to prevent the crime. Also, if the criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly force to stop him, because you would no longer be “preventing” a crime. If use of deadly force is not necessary, or you use deadly force after the crime has stopped, you could be convicted of manslaughter.
Q. WHAT IF I POINT MY HANDGUN AT SOMEONE BUT DON’T USE IT?
A. Never display a handgun to gain “leverage” in an argument. Threatening someone verbally while possessing a handgun, even if you are licensed to carry a firearm concealed, will land you in jail for three years. Even if the gun is broken or you don’t have ammunition, you will receive the mandatory three-year sentence if convicted. The law does not allow any possibility of getting out of jail early.
Example: In a 1987 case, a woman refused to pay an automobile mechanic who she thought did a poor job of repairing her car. They argued about it, and the mechanic removed the radiator hose from the car so she couldn’t drive it away. She reached into her purse, pulled out an unloaded gun, and threatened to kill the mechanic if he touched her car again. The mechanic grabbed the
gun and called the police.
The woman was convicted of aggravated assault with a firearm and sentenced to serve a mandatory three-year prison term. The fact that the gun was not loaded was irrelevant. Even though she was the mother of three dependent children and had no prior criminal record, the statute did not allow for parole. Her only recourse was to seek clemency from the Governor.
Q. WHEN CAN I USE DEADLY FORCE IN THE DEFENSE OF ANOTHER PERSON?
A. If you see someone who is being attacked, you can use deadly force to defend him/her if the circumstances would justify that person’s use of deadly force in his/her own defense. In other words, you “stand in the shoes” of the person being attacked.
ooooooooooooooooooo
Changes to Chapter 776, Florida Statutes, The Part of the Law Pertaining to Justifiable Use of Force
On October 1, 2005, changes to Chapter 776, Florida Statutes, became effective. The changes relate to: the protection of persons and property; authorizing a person to use force, including deadly force, against an intruder or attacker in a dwelling, residence, or vehicle under specified circumstances; creating a presumption that a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm exists under certain circumstances; creating a presumption that a person acts with the intent to use force or violence under specified circumstances; the justification in using deadly force under
certain circumstances; the lack of a duty to retreat and a person’s right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force if that person is in a place where he or she has a right to be and the force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily harm, or the commission of a forcible felony; creating immunity from criminal prosecution or civil action for using deadly force; the definition of the term “criminal prosecution’’; authorizing a law enforcement agency to investigate the use of deadly force but prohibiting the agency from arresting the person unless the agency determines that there is probable cause that the force the person used was unlawful; providing for the award of attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and other expenses to a defendant in a civil suit who is immune from prosecution under this section.
Concealed weapon licensees should be advised that matters pertaining to the lawful use of deadly force do not fall within the purview of the Division of Licensing; therefore, the Division cannot comment or provide specific guidance as to any particular set of circumstances in which this law would apply.
The Division strongly recommends that you read Chapter 776, Florida Statutes. If you have specific concerns regarding this law you should direct them to your attorney or speak with your local law enforcement agency to determine how this law will be implemented within a particular jurisdiction in Florida.
 
BBM

How many times has a person involved in a homicide investigation contacted the victims' relatives for any reason before trial? I just don't think that's a reasonable expectation, to be honest.

What trial? He has an attorney. I don't remember the attorney's first statement addressing TM's family and how sorry he was this happened. jmo
 
Yes, this is typical of what LE considers as their greatest nightmare. And if all law abiding citizen's carried guns IMO there would be more of them dead than criminals. Criminals know who they are, an advantage. lol

I have no idea why you think that it would be a nightmare for law abiding citizens to have a gun for protection. And you think criminals are better shots. OK ? How do criminals know who is carrying. Just because the states would allow people to carry does not mean that everybody carries, that's the beauty of it. criminals don't want to get shot or die.
 
BBM

How many times has a person involved in a homicide investigation contacted the victims' relatives for any reason before trial? I just don't think that's a reasonable expectation, to be honest.
Ok - I'll give ya that. However, we have yet to hear anyone from GZ's camp say that GZ is truly very sorry that he killed Trayvon. All I keep hearing is that "if he didn't kill Trayvon, then Trayvon would have killed him".

JMHO
 
What trial? He has an attorney. I don't remember the attorney's first statement addressing TM's family and how sorry he was this happened. jmo
Okay. I was speaking as if we all know he's going to go to trial. I'll rephrase - During an active homicide investigation.
 
Ok - I'll give ya that. However, we have yet to hear anyone from GZ's camp say that GZ is truly very sorry that he killed Trayvon. All I keep hearing is that "if he didn't kill Trayvon, then Trayvon would have killed him".

JMHO
That's a fair point, and I don't know if it's because of a fear of admitting culpability publicly or what.
 
version of the story which doesn't seem feasible to me at least in the sequence he uses which is that when he first called he was at the rear of the town houses and so needed an address-I thought he was at the clubhouse and knew very well where he was-he gave that 111 address?

&#8220;He called the non-emergency number first, and they asked him where he was, because he was at the rear of the town houses and there was no street sign,&#8221; said Robert.

Even though a dispatcher told George Zimmerman not to follow Martin, his father said his son continued his pursuit to locate an address to give to police.

&#8220;He lost sight of the individual, he continued to walk down the same sidewalk to the next street, so he could get an address for the police,&#8221; he said.

&#8220;He went to the next street, realized where he was and was walking to his vehicle. It&#8217;s my understanding, at that point, Trayvon Martin walked up to him and asked him, &#8216;Do you have a [expletive] problem?&#8217; George said, &#8216;No, I don&#8217;t have a problem,&#8217; and started to reach for his cell phone&#8230; at that point, he (Martin) was punching him in the nose, his nose was broken and he was knocked to the concrete.&#8221;

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/trayvon_martin/032812-exclusive-robert-zimmerman-interview


I don't have links but my memory is that there were two different allegations, neither made by George Zimmerman. One, I believe was made by Police Chief Bill Lee to the effect that GZ had gotten out of his car to check street signs and was attacked by TM when GZ turned to get back into his car.

Later, someone else, and I don't know who made this claim to the media, was that GZ was looking for street numbers. Again the claim was made that GZ was attacked by TM when GZ was returning to his car.

I looked for links, but those two differing stories are lost in the thousands of stories and blog postings online. So this is strictly from memory and therefore my opinion only.
 
Please please tell me that you are not saying that anyone with gold teeth is DEPRAVED. Now I want your full list of what clothes, accessories, fashion choices constitutes DEPRAVED.

I certainly hope you don't patrol your neighborhood with a hand gun.

First of all I do not patrol anything nor would I want a gun ever. That is just me.
Can&#8217;t give you a list of what I consider depraved.
But we all do gravitate to some, and not to others due to what we feel.
I have to tell you this, adults shoul care how the kids go out there.

One day I saw a young man come into the office with his pants at his knees yes his underpants all out.
he wanted one of the agents to show him an apartment. I went to the front desk and told the man
go home get dressed bring with you the following documents and then come back and someone would
show him an apartment. NO we do not have to just let it be No not anything goes.
 
I asked him what facts he had about the case he was making that opinion on and he did not answer.

Probably the same facts we all had at the time IMO Unless it can be proven TM did not confront and attack GZ first he was within the law.TM's own GF says TM speaks the first words which means to me he started the confrontation,he had to have come up on GZ to ask him why was he following him.IF TM started the fight which is what GZ is stating then TM made the mistake of attacking an armed man.JMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
148
Guests online
2,408
Total visitors
2,556

Forum statistics

Threads
601,904
Messages
18,131,649
Members
231,184
Latest member
Buck_317
Back
Top