rickyp wrote:

Another group will be sympathetic to someone who may have been trying to protect his neighborhood from crime, using his constitutional firearm, and perhaps trying to protect himself,

The term for this kind of self appointed person, out patrolling his neighborhood, is vigilante.
Are people generally sympathetic to vigilante justice?

You give pretty much the dictionary definition of 'vigilante':

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/vigilante

vig·i·lan·te (vj-lnt)
n.
1. One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.
2. A member of a vigilance committee.

...

vigilante [ˌvɪdʒɪˈlæntɪ]
n
1. one of an organized group of citizens who take upon themselves the protection of their district, properties, etc.
2. Also called vigilance man US a member of a vigilance committee

and Brad says you are out of order? I know I don't always get what you are saying, but when you are right, you are right, and Brad needs to find a new punchbag.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

danivon wrote:1) The police did not appear to act for weeks (unlike with Kress)

Well the Martin/Zimmerman incident took place on February 26th and the information was turned over to the prosecutors after investigation around March 13th. Which is basically two weeks of investigating.

While with Kress, they didn't know who had done it on Jan 14th, but had three suspected in custody and charged by Jan 21st. Apparently Philly's PD can work a lot faster (but I guess they have more practice).

So again I ask, what more could the police have done to make you less disappointed in their actions?

I've already answered this question in part earlier: Arrest him at the scene, get him away while they collect evidence.

Additionally, conduct the investigation with a more open attitude to the family of the deceased.

What is it with asking me 'again' questions I've already answered?

Sassenach wrote:I think you're being remarkably naive to assume that this law would not allow people to get away with murder.

And I think you are being purposefully obtuse because you disagree wit the law and don't want to admit you are wrong.

Sassenach wrote:How the hell can the police ever prove otherwise if somebody is found unlawfully on their property ?

By the same way the police would in any other similar situation.

Le'ts use this hypothetical. Before the stand your ground law was passed, I could kill someone if they broke into my house and I had no other way to get out. So I have a guy break into my house and come upstairs where I am. I have no way to get out because I am on the 3rd floor. I kill him in defense of myself. Since it is only him and I and he is dead how are the police supposed to know it actually happened that way.

Sassenach wrote:It doesn't apply a test of reasonableness to the use of force.

Actually it does. By setting out two conditions to be met, i.e. unlawful and forcible action, and the requirement for a reasonable believe of threat of death or serious bodily injury.

Sassenach wrote:For example, where is the imminent risk to your person where the intruder is already running away ? Bear in mind that this is covered by the 'has taken place' part of the legislation.

I'm sorry but I don't see any thing were it says "has taken place" in the legislation.

Zimmerman was part of a "vigilance" committee. I think THAT is a good thing that all neighborhoods should be doing. Neighbors should be watching out for each others property and safety. I would hope you would agree with that, Owen.

To call Zimmerman a vigilante is using the term in a negative context, where the neighborhood watch is a positive thing. If RickyP renounces the first definition you provided, I would not question his usage of the term.

danivon wrote:I've already answered this question in part earlier: Arrest him at the scene, get him away while they collect evidence.

Perhaps they felt there wasn't enough probably cause to arrest him. He was detained for a period of time. or perhaps the police felt, based on previous experience, he would be released w/o bail so why waste taxpayer time.

danivon wrote:Additionally, conduct the investigation with a more open attitude to the family of the deceased.

I am not sure what you mean about this. I don't know how it is in the UK but here, police tend not to comment on active investigations to anybody. Especially to members of the victim's family.

danivon wrote:What is it with asking me 'again' questions I've already answered?

I did not see your previous response so I thought you were ignoring an uncomfortable the question. Mea Culpas.

danivon wrote:

rickyp wrote:

Another group will be sympathetic to someone who may have been trying to protect his neighborhood from crime, using his constitutional firearm, and perhaps trying to protect himself,

The term for this kind of self appointed person, out patrolling his neighborhood, is vigilante.
Are people generally sympathetic to vigilante justice?

.

Are you guys seriously trying to say people should not have official, government sanctioned, neighborhood watches?

I'm sorry but I don't see any thing were it says "has taken place" in the legislation.

It specifically says that a presumption of reasonable fear for your person shall apply where you know or have reason to believe that a forcible entry has taken place. This could just as easily mean the slaying of an intruder who's fleeing the scene as one who's coming at you with a knife. This law makes no distinction between the two situations despite the fact that one is far more dangerous than the other. The only test of reasonableness it applies is whether there's been an unlawful and forcible entry.

Just out of interest Russ, why do you think a law like this is necessary ? As you said yourself, some form of castle doctrine already exists in your legal system to allow self-defence anyway so where was the need to remove any more potential consequences from the use of deadly force ?

archduke

Are you guys seriously trying to say people should not have official, government sanctioned, neighborhood watches?

I guess it would be nice if you understood the difference between the Neighborhood Watch programs and what Zimmerman was doing...

A neighborhood watch or neighbourhood watch (see spelling differences), also called a crime watch or neighborhood crime watch, is an organized group of citizens devoted to crime and vandalism prevention within a neighborhood. In the United States it builds on the concept of a town watch from Colonial America.
A neighborhood watch may be organized as its own group or may simply be a function of a neighborhood association or other community association.
Neighborhood watches are not vigilante organizations. When suspecting criminal activities, members are encouraged to contact authorities and not to intervene

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhood_watch

And when you say government sanctioned... perhaps you can point to what governments and what they sanction. They certainly don't sanction groups of armed citizens roaming around looking to intervene as peace officers" whenever they feel like it.
They would be vigilantees...
Zimmerman claimed to be a Watch Captain. He wasn't.

b

To call Zimmerman a vigilante is using the term in a negative context, where the neighborhood watch is a positive thing. If RickyP renounces the first definition you provided, I would not question his usage of the term

.

To call Zimmerman a vigilante. A self appointed arbiter of justice... is entirely accurate. That you see the word vigilante in a negative context is perhaps that you've learned over the years that vigilantees are not welcome in a civil society. However you apparently never bothered to actually learn what the term actually means.

What Zimmerman was doing bore little resemblance to the way Neighborhood Watch is suppossed to operate.... Their mandate is to report suspected criminal activity. Not to intervene. And certainly not to act as a police force...

The question here is whether or not SYG contributed to his aggressive behaviour. I suspect it did.
Archduke and Sass are going on about the hypotheticals...when there is actual statistical evidence of the effects of SYG. The study I linked to by the Tampa Bay newspaper clearly shows that "justifiable homicides" have trebled since the law has passed. I can think of no reason why Florida was suddenly awash in home invasions that would justify acts of self defense causing death. However, the passing of the law, and the promotion of it by its proponents has contributed to more aggressive behaviour by the populace.
The anecdotes that the Tampa Bay newspaper reported are clear examples where citizens chose more aggressive behaviour and it lead to shootings.... They put a face on the statistics that clearly show that SYG is promoting violent behaviour that before the law was not nearly as common. And the violent behaviour is resulting in outcomes that are often deadly and often regrettable.

There is more coming out every day about the Zimmerman case. Including the original lead investigator asking for a warrant to arrest Zimmerman and being refused by the state attorney general. I suspect that this is a case of improper involvement by the attorney general, perhaps lead by Zimmermans familial connections.... SYG has a peripheral attachment, and perhaps an important one ...but in the end I'll bet it comes down to cronyism as the fault of justice denied. And thats whats really the issue. Why was the pursuit of justice hijacked?
SYG is a law which seems to create uncertainty and doubt amongst law enforcement. A law that does that, is 1) poorly written
2) ill advised
Moreover, since the results of SYG seem deadly, and seem to have in no way diminished instances of crime, I wonder how it can be characterized as postive?

Have we concluded what happened after 911 told Zimmerman to not pursue Martin? Zimmerman said "ok", and the scuffle was after that, but we don't know whether Martin confronted Zimmerman when he was trying to get back into his car, or whether Zimmerman continued to follow Martin and then they tangled. If I had to bet, I would guess the latter based on Zimmerman's other transgressions and the weakness of the "ok". But the presumption is innocence regardless of my guess.

Another important question: if Zimmerman did pursue Martin, we don't know why the fight escalated. Who struck the first blow? Who took it from words to physical fighting? If it did go to fighting, how desperate was Zimmerman's situation when he pulled the trigger?

Here's my last question: why are so many people so certain of what happened without knowing all the facts? When I initially heard the story, I just assumed that Zimmerman was guilty and a racist; some of that was based on the two pictures that I saw; Martin was dressed as a clean cut American kid in his football uniform; Zimmerman looked like a thug in a mug shot.

Without knowing all of the critical facts, it seems like so many of us are projecting our own biases.

Ricky: b

To call Zimmerman a vigilante is using the term in a negative context, where the neighborhood watch is a positive thing. If RickyP renounces the first definition you provided, I would not question his usage of the term

.

To call Zimmerman a vigilante. A self appointed arbiter of justice... is entirely accurate. That you see the word vigilante in a negative context is perhaps that you've learned over the years that vigilantees are not welcome in a civil society. However you apparently never bothered to actually learn what the term actually means.

This is somewhat misleading. Ricky, you used the term vigilante to challenge the words that I used. Here's my post that you quoted::

Another group will be sympathetic to someone who may have been trying to protect his neighborhood from crime, using his constitutional firearm, and perhaps trying to protect himself,

This is what you shot back:

The term for this kind of self appointed person, out patrolling his neighborhood, is vigilante.
Are people generally sympathetic to vigilante justice?

So, I think you used the word vigilante in a negative context first, and now you are playing gotcha, or at least that's how it seems to me.

RJ: Exactly my point about RickyP's use of the term.

RickyP: Until proof is given that Zimmerman did anything more than stupidly leaving his car, you are spouting out the wrong side of your...

Sassenach wrote:It specifically says that a presumption of reasonable fear for your person shall apply where you know or have reason to believe that a forcible entry has taken place. This could just as easily mean the slaying of an intruder who's fleeing the scene as one who's coming at you with a knife. This law makes no distinction between the two situations despite the fact that one is far more dangerous than the other. The only test of reasonableness it applies is whether there's been an unlawful and forcible entry.

Sorr but you are wrong here again. The test of reasonableness is also on whether there was a fear of death or seriously bodily injury. Further, the "forcible entry entry has taken place" refers to the entry and would not extend to an after the fact time.

Sassenach wrote:Just out of interest Russ, why do you think a law like this is necessary ? As you said yourself, some form of castle doctrine already exists in your legal system to allow self-defence anyway so where was the need to remove any more potential consequences from the use of deadly force ?

Because it shifts the burden of proof back to where is should be.

Under the old law, a person who defends himself would be arrested and charged with manslaughter/homicide. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. This means the burden is on the person claiming self defense to prove they did act in self defense. Only once enough evidence has been provided to get a jury instruction of self defense does the prosecution have the burden to prove it wasn't.

Under the stand your ground law, the burden to prove the individual did not act in self defense is entirely on the prosecution. Which in my opinion is exactly where I believe it should be.

b

Until proof is given that Zimmerman did anything more than stupidly leaving his car,

Actually thats all we need to know. Instead of calling in his report, as a neighborhood watch would do, he got out of his truck to intervene. As soon as he did that he crossed over into vigilante. As soon as the police operator said "we don't need you to do this..." and he continued, we know.

Neighborhood Watch is vigilance. It isn't about lone wolf, self appointed "watch captains" seeking targets. When NW sponsors aatrols, they are usually groups of unarmed citizens.... The idea being that bearing witness and being able to call the police is going to deter criminal acts. And it tends to work.

ray

So, I think you used the word vigilante in a negative context first

,

I think there is no other context to the term vigilante, then a negative context.
What I did Ray, was I put the term vigilante to the description of what you seem to think is appropriate behaviour. And if all thats involved is "vigilance" and reporting to the authorities, it is.... Though usually these groups of neighborhood watch have gone unarmed, I presume to ensure that they won't be encouraged by their possession of firearms, to provoke confrontation and perhaps violence....

Please explain to me why Zimmerman's behaviour fit that of anything but a vigilante. He was out looking for trouble on his own, rather than with an organized group. As soon as he left his truck and set out to interdict Martin he became, without any doubt, a vigilante. This act was not that of a spur of the moment decision... and he wasn't intervening where someone elses life was threatened, or even intervening where a crime was in the act of commission. He'd simply decided to confront Martin.... and ignored the authorities who said "we don't need you to do this..."

Even if Martin accosted Zimmerman, according to SYG he had every right. His act of accosting Zimmerman if he did, if provoked but not a genuine act of defence, is also wrong. And yes his actions, if these were his actions, did contribute to his death.But SYG, would have protected his actions.... (Great law huh?)
However, what was the first illegal act? Zimmerman had no legal right to get out of his car and accost Martin for walking in the area. I beleive that SYG as it has been applied and promoted in Florida contributed to Zimmermans attitude. And his aggressive behaviour.
It was certainly quoted by the Sanford police department as the reason he was let go.... So how is it contributing to anything but civil tension and unnecessary blood shed.?

Sorr but you are wrong here again. The test of reasonableness is also on whether there was a fear of death or seriously bodily injury. Further, the "forcible entry entry has taken place" refers to the entry and would not extend to an after the fact time.

I take it you have read the legislation ? This is totally wrong. The law explicitly states that there's a presumption in favour of an automatic fear of bodily harm in any situation where a forced entry is about to take place or has taken place, and since the 'reason to believe' clause is also in there it clearly can't solely refer to a situation where a forced entry is in the process of occurring. As such, the law effectively states that any use of lethal force against an intruder who has forcibly entered your property is allowed, no matter the circumstances.

Because it shifts the burden of proof back to where is should be.

Under the old law, a person who defends himself would be arrested and charged with manslaughter/homicide. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. This means the burden is on the person claiming self defense to prove they did act in self defense. Only once enough evidence has been provided to get a jury instruction of self defense does the prosecution have the burden to prove it wasn't.

Under the stand your ground law, the burden to prove the individual did not act in self defense is entirely on the prosecution. Which in my opinion is exactly where I believe it should be.

If you've committed a homicide then shouldn't you at least have to provide some justification for it ? It's not like there are many Americans (if any) who were getting convicted of manslaughter when defending their own homes under the old law so I'm not really seeing the necessity for shifting the burden of proof. In effect this law gives the benefit of the doubt to the killer, which doesn't strike me as a very sensible approach to justice.