When "Neighborhood Watch" Gets Out of Hand

Would the bail hearing be the appropriate time for Z's lawyer to move that the case be dismissed under the "Stand Your Ground" law, or is that off the table at this time?

I would not rule out the possibility of bail in this case, but the question of Z's safety looms large, so it might be better for him to be in protective custody. I am sure he is totally sequestered wherever he is being held now.

[bigrun]

Trayvon Martin: There are other issues.


Editor, Times-Dispatch:

The emphasis on race in the Trayvon Martin shooting has obscured two other issues. First, why has discussion of Florida's "stand your ground" law applied only to George Zimmerman? Martin also had a right to be in the gated complex. He wasn't looking in windows, hiding or moving surreptitiously, only returning with junk food from a convenience store.

Zimmerman chose to track him and if he were approaching Martin too closely or calling out, he likely made Martin feel threatened. The young man probably had no idea Zimmerman was a neighborhood watchman. He only knew someone was following him who could possibly harm him. Why did Martin not also have a right to stand his ground?

Which raises a second issue: Zimmerman had a permit to carry and most likely his gun was visible. Being armed, he probably felt safe disregarding the admonition not to follow Martin. If he hadn't been armed it's very possible he wouldn't have followed Martin.

Both issues raise the question whether Zimmerman's permit to carry and possession of the gun itself suggest to most that "stand your ground" applied to him rather than Martin. Is there a tendency to think someone legally armed is right and the unarmed individual is not? Why doesn't "stand your ground" apply equally to Martin?

[Honu]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Trayvon Martin: There are other issues.


Editor, Times-Dispatch:

He may have stood his ground, we have no idea if he did or not because he is not here to tell us.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Honu

He may have stood his ground, we have no idea if he did or not because he is not here to tell us.

That is an issue in any legal case where a life is lost. It certainly has not stopped prosecutions and convictions for murder. There are ways other than testimony to prove a case.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Honu

He may have stood his ground, we have no idea if he did or not because he is not here to tell us.

The forensic evidence of how close the gunshot was to Trayvon, if Trayvon's fingerprints are on the gun, if Trayvon has evidence of a fight on his person (Zimmerman's skin under fingernails, bruising, etc.) will help clear that up.

If evidence was even processed by the police department, which I understand is a concern here (although we don't know for sure, it's sealed).

There is evidence that Trayvon was on the phone with his girlfriend, worried that someone was following him and scaring him.

[bigrun]

Cosby: Trayvon Martin case about guns, not race


Actor and comedian Bill Cosby says the debate over the killing of Trayvon Martin by a neighborhood watch volunteer should be focused on guns, not race.

In an interview on CNN's "State of the Union" aired Sunday, Cosby said calling George Zimmerman a racist doesn't solve anything. Cosby says the bigger question is what Zimmerman was doing with a gun, and who taught him how to behave with it.

The shooting of the 17-year-old Martin on Feb. 26 has ignited a nationwide debate about race and self-defense.

Cosby said during the interview, which was taped Thursday afternoon, that he once owned a gun but no longer does. He says there is a need to get guns off the streets, and that people should be taught to use every possible alternative before shooting someone.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

The forensic evidence of how close the gunshot was to Trayvon, if Trayvon's fingerprints are on the gun, if Trayvon has evidence of a fight on his person (Zimmerman's skin under fingernails, bruising, etc.) will help clear that up.

If evidence was even processed by the police department, which I understand is a concern here (although we don't know for sure, it's sealed).

There is evidence that Trayvon was on the phone with his girlfriend, worried that someone was following him and scaring him.

I don't think anyone denies what you are saying. Martin was obviously concerned and/or worried as to why this stranger was following him. I don't think anyone would dispute that.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't think anyone denies what you are saying. Martin was obviously concerned and/or worried as to why this stranger was following him. I don't think anyone would dispute that.

Two guys standing their ground, with a gun involved. Now one's dead. As Big posted, "What's the real problem here?" America?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Two guys standing their ground, with a gun involved. Now one's dead. As Big posted, "What's the real problem here?" America?

With regard to guns, I think anyone's gut instinct (myself included), would be that people carrying concealed weapons is dangerous and that this would lead to more people getting killed. That seems like a reasonable hypothesis.

However, the evidence doesn't support that hypothesis. Quite to the contrary, all the evidence I have seen shows that there is less violent crime in states after they pass laws allowing people to start carrying concealed weapons. There will obviously be some unfortunate incidents such as this case. You can't make a decision based on one incident. You have to view the overall results of what happens when a state allows people to carry concealed weapons. I think the evidence shows that the overall results are positive (there are less deaths and less violent crimes).

If you have any evidence that shows the opposite, feel free to present it.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Trayvon Martin: There are other issues.


Editor, Times-Dispatch:

I think that is a valid point. Martin would certainly have a valid right to defend himself from some guy that is following him and coming towards him.

However, Zimmerman claims that Martin attacked him from behind while he was walking back to his car. If that is what happened, Martin could not argue that he was standing his ground.

Even if Martin was simply "standing his ground", at some point he is on top of Zimmerman pounding him in the face and banging his head against the pavement. At what point does Zimmerman have the right to use deadly force to save himself from death (plenty of people have died in fist fights) or great bodily harm, such as ending up in a coma from head injuries?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

Would the bail hearing be the appropriate time for Z's lawyer to move that the case be dismissed under the "Stand Your Ground" law, or is that off the table at this time?

I would not rule out the possibility of bail in this case, but the question of Z's safety looms large, so it might be better for him to be in protective custody. I am sure he is totally sequestered wherever he is being held now.

This is not the hearing where Zimmerman's lawyer will ask to have the case dismissed. That will happen next month.