General Discussion

angrychair

(12,022 posts)

78. Some things still not make sense:

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 06:41 PM

Mar 2012

At least where I live we have an 'unlawful detention' law, not sure about FL. Meaning, that it is unlawful to stop, detain or imped the travel of someone against their will. No one, not even a law officer, can stop me on the street to ask me questions if I don't want to stop. I am free to answer or not answer any question and leave when I want. Even so much as putting your arm across a doorway to prevent a person's egress can be considered unlawful detention. So, even a law officer has to have enough evidence to detain me before they can imped my free travel or to question me. So Zimmerman, as a private citizen, had no right to stop (i.e. question), detain or imped Martin for any reason, at least where I live. They have to had know that Zimmerman was following him and approached him or Martin was afraid for his life and fought back. By giving Zimmerman the right to stand his ground and face no charges based on self-defense, creates a presumption of guilt on the part of Martin and presumes he was in the middle of a criminal act and therefore had no basis for self-defense. The whole thing doesn't make sense on its face to me.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

136 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

As A Former Law Enforcement Officer, My Impressions Of The Martin Case. [View all] RBInMaine Mar 2012 OP

Well said. The police response puzzles me more than the crime itself arcane1 Mar 2012 #1

Well, maybe not that sloppy, but it looks pretty damn sloppy nontheless. I hear ya. RBInMaine Mar 2012 #4

It's not sloppiness if there's an agenda behind it. 2ndAmForComputers Mar 2012 #95

Not sloppy. sendero Mar 2012 #32

son of a judge magical thyme Mar 2012 #72

His dad retired to FL jeff47 Mar 2012 #93

I'm with you. I seriously hope and pray that the Justice Department launches a full-fledged coalition_unwilling Mar 2012 #79

One thing: Zimmerman was not affiliated with any official Neighborhood Watch program. baldguy Mar 2012 #2

Just going on the reports I heard on the media that he was the Watch Captain. Still, RBInMaine Mar 2012 #3

RB, I was listening to an interview with one of the founding members of the Neighborhood Ecumenist Mar 2012 #7

OK Thanks. Well, ego-stroking and power-hunger intentions certainly. Very bad judgement and for RBInMaine Mar 2012 #8

He was a self-appointed watch captain. As far as I can recall rustydog Mar 2012 #37

I've set up neighborhood watch's for my dept. at no time was anyone allowed to patrol alone Historic NY Mar 2012 #111

Zimmerman wasn't affiliated with the official Neighborhood Watch but his HOA approved of his patrols yardwork Mar 2012 #86

Actually despite the earlier reports, there was a neighborhood watch group csziggy Mar 2012 #105

THANK YOU RBInMAaine, Thank you so much! I am so delighted and pleased to hear the word Ecumenist Mar 2012 #5

Thanks. Many questions to clear up, but these are my impressions based on what I have heard and RBInMaine Mar 2012 #9

Well, I just heard that the family is going to do just that- sue the HOA of the Ecumenist Mar 2012 #17

That's what I've always thought, too. randome Mar 2012 #36

Thank you for your educated opinion. It certainly matches my (totally uninformed!) opinion! MindandSoul Mar 2012 #6

Sanford City Manager has a website CAPHAVOC Mar 2012 #10

Do you have a link to an article or video of this witness who claims that he saw Trayvon on top? yardwork Mar 2012 #87

the only reporting I have seen on this "witness" is from FOX grasswire Mar 2012 #122

The local Fox TV in Orlando CAPHAVOC Mar 2012 #125

.....ok yardwork Mar 2012 #127

They sent a reporter and interviewed the witness on camera. CAPHAVOC Mar 2012 #128

The witness that won't give their name? yardwork Mar 2012 #129

Yes CAPHAVOC Mar 2012 #130

I don't blame him. Zimmerman is still out there with a gun. yardwork Mar 2012 #131

And CAPHAVOC Mar 2012 #132

Link? I've read articles that say they have a case, but none that say they will sue. yardwork Mar 2012 #133

Would you? CAPHAVOC Mar 2012 #134

A kid that weighed 100 pounds less than Zimmerman was on top Rozlee Mar 2012 #112

Your observation makes sense. MD20 Mar 2012 #126

Thank you very much for your commentary MrScorpio Mar 2012 #11

kick grantcart Mar 2012 #12

Thank you, RBInMaine, nenagh Mar 2012 #13

Thanks for the summary and the informed opinion nt steve2470 Mar 2012 #14

I think you laid it out pretty well there. nt BootinUp Mar 2012 #15

Thanks very much for your analysis on this. freshwest Mar 2012 #16

You state that Zimmerman had a right to arthritisR_US Mar 2012 #18

No, that is not "stalking." Stalking is the REPEATED following of someone with an intent to RBInMaine Mar 2012 #26

Thank you for clarifying that for me because arthritisR_US Mar 2012 #38

Don't take "experts" word for everything...look it up yourself. MD20 Mar 2012 #90

Umm, you'd want to check the FL State and city statutes, not a dictionary. X_Digger Mar 2012 #94

Well, since RB didn't give a reference, how are we to critique his analysis properly? MD20 Mar 2012 #100

A dictionary is rarely the first place to look when talking legal matters. X_Digger Mar 2012 #102

accepting information without references is even more foolish! MD20 Mar 2012 #104

Well it's a good thing I'm only a passive arthritisR_US Mar 2012 #109

What I believe he was clarifying for me arthritisR_US Mar 2012 #97

Belief? Lets hope he posts a reference so we will KNOW! MD20 Mar 2012 #103

The dictionary isn't a legal document jeff47 Mar 2012 #98

Show me the citation pleas...I would like to see it for myself! MD20 Mar 2012 #101

So, your google works for dictionaries, but not FL Law? (nt) jeff47 Mar 2012 #106

The legal definition would vary from the common usage csziggy Mar 2012 #107

Here is Florida's law on stalking! Read and make up your own mind! MD20 Mar 2012 #113

So Florida's law may not require repeated instances csziggy Mar 2012 #114

The legal definition of "repeatedly" can occur within minutes under Floridia law. MD20 Mar 2012 #115

So given that definition, couldn't a Grand arthritisR_US Mar 2012 #119

I would hope so, but... MD20 Mar 2012 #121

I would hope so too. I don't think we will arthritisR_US Mar 2012 #124

Why do you say he had the right to pursue? EFerrari Mar 2012 #19

Any citizen has the right to move around their neighborhood Bucky Mar 2012 #20

I think you pretty much have it right. To follow at a distance, watch, and even ask RBInMaine Mar 2012 #28

Yes and No... Pachamama Mar 2012 #70

They are protecting something. EFerrari Mar 2012 #92

Stalking another person is not just moving around your neighborhood. EFerrari Mar 2012 #39

Very true, snipers stalk their prey Rex Mar 2012 #42

Just in case some "expert" tries to tailor the definition of the word stalking MD20 Mar 2012 #91

Zimmerman did have the right to move around the area and even follow at a distance for at least RBInMaine Mar 2012 #27

Since Zimmerman's hobby was to call the police and because of the way he responded EFerrari Mar 2012 #40

But, eventually he did stalk the young man. Rex Mar 2012 #43

Ty for the commentary. caseymoz Mar 2012 #21

A word about following someone! MD20 Mar 2012 #22

I am placing blame for this incident on Zimmerman. What aren't you seeing here? Like it or not, RBInMaine Mar 2012 #29

One quote from your premise still bothers me! MD20 Mar 2012 #96

You have a shockingly poor grasp of law. jeff47 Mar 2012 #99

Unless you can back that statement up MD20 Mar 2012 #116

I don't have to back that up. Your posts stand on their own. (nt) jeff47 Mar 2012 #117

As does your uncertified rants and complaints,,,they too stand on their own. MD20 Mar 2012 #118

So here is what I don't understand. The police say they don't have enough evidence to IndyJones Mar 2012 #23

Absolutely. Good detectives should have been immediately called in with a VERY thorough RBInMaine Mar 2012 #31

Hard to know exactly what went through the cops' minds, but coalition_unwilling Mar 2012 #81

Thank you. Straw Man Mar 2012 #24

To what degree do you think the lack of evidence onestepforward Mar 2012 #25

The 911 tapes and witnesses still provide strong evidence of very bad judgement and RBInMaine Mar 2012 #30

Thank you for this information. onestepforward Mar 2012 #61

From what you have been able to discern, was any kind of forensic work done LuckyLib Mar 2012 #85

Good post CreekDog Mar 2012 #33

Your assertion that "he pursued Trayvon so Stand Your Ground does not apply" is mistaken. Warren Stupidity Mar 2012 #34

Imo, Zimmerman may get off but the police department will eat it in civil court. EFerrari Mar 2012 #41

That is always the case, SYG or not. X_Digger Mar 2012 #52

Yes sure, however SYG makes it more difficult to prosecute vigilantes. Warren Stupidity Mar 2012 #57

I don't think that it is 'a good idea to make it easier for sociopathic..' X_Digger Mar 2012 #58

this law has already applied. Warren Stupidity Mar 2012 #60

*sigh* Had the law been different, do you think the Sanford PD would be any more inclined.. X_Digger Mar 2012 #62

yeah under the prior common self defense standard they would have very likely had to arrest him Warren Stupidity Mar 2012 #64

I'm having a hard time with this 'had to' business. X_Digger Mar 2012 #65

Of course they would. That's the whole point. Starboard Tack Mar 2012 #66

The cops who looked the other way when a teenager beat a homeless black man? X_Digger Mar 2012 #68

Zimmerman's own lawyer says SYG doesn't apply csziggy Mar 2012 #110

I think you are being very generous DFW Mar 2012 #35

A correction, they did not take 72 hours to inform the family. That was the initial media report sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #51

Another point.. we only have a partial police report. X_Digger Mar 2012 #54

Good write up TheKentuckian Mar 2012 #44

"He even had the right to pursue Trayvon and ask him what he was up to" Old and In the Way Mar 2012 #45

Persue doesn't mean stop or detain. bluedigger Mar 2012 #48

that is what the right wngers are saying pasto76 Mar 2012 #55

I was just pointing out a fallacy. bluedigger Mar 2012 #56

Right on target. Eddie Haskell Mar 2012 #46

Refrain bottom line Mar 2012 #47

I wonder if the gated community was private property? If so, then a homeowner... Honeycombe8 Mar 2012 #120

Manslaughter - detainment - full interview - forensics underpants Mar 2012 #49

an understatement tooeyeten Mar 2012 #50

Question... TeeYiYi Mar 2012 #53

If Zimmerman had a broken nose wouldn't it be bleeding profusely snagglepuss Mar 2012 #59

According to the police report, Zimmerman was treated on scene.. X_Digger Mar 2012 #67

Thanks. Though I have to wonder how profusely he was bleeding from the nose. snagglepuss Mar 2012 #69

+100 Excellent post. nt. Starboard Tack Mar 2012 #63

broken nose mbuch64 Mar 2012 #71

Thanks! evilhime Mar 2012 #73

Good post loyalsister Mar 2012 #74

Excellent analysis. jopeli Mar 2012 #75

This is a well thought out and logical post. secondvariety Mar 2012 #76

Is Zimmerman's father a judge? I read that somewhere HockeyMom Mar 2012 #77

His father is a retired Virginia Magistrate Judge. X_Digger Mar 2012 #89

Some things still not make sense: angrychair Mar 2012 #78

Interesting insights - there's no way Zimmerman should be allowed to get off scot free. Initech Mar 2012 #80

I have maintained all along that at the very least there must be a case for "reckless homicide", or spicegal Mar 2012 #82

Emphatic K&R. How do you explain the cops' bungling? Personally, I think coalition_unwilling Mar 2012 #83

If Zimmermen was "pursuing" Trayvon , bvar22 Mar 2012 #84

Thank you for this analysis and your post. Why do you think the Sanford police department yardwork Mar 2012 #88

I appreciate your theories LittleGirl Mar 2012 #108

thanks for your insight as a law enforcement professional noiretextatique Mar 2012 #123

There is also and mistaken notion Puzzledtraveller Mar 2012 #135

Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Mar 2012 #136