The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

Seventeen-Year-Old Travon Martin was fatally shot by George Zimmerman, a "Neighborhood Watch" volunteer. Martin was walking through a neighborhood while visiting a resident. Zimmerman shot Martin, claiming Martin attacked him. Police did not make an arrest, citing the state's "Stand Your Ground" law that covers someone using a gun in self-defense. The SYG law requires the police to accept the shooter's statement unless an eyewitness or other compelling evidence exist at the scene.

Critics of the Police Department claim the investigation has been cursory and that 911 tapes show Zimmerman inititiated contact with and pursued Martin prior to the shooting.

Was Zimmerman acting reasonably under SYG, based on the infomation made public so far, or was he exceeding the intent of the law?

_________________
"I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State;
Ronald Reagan

(Emphasis Mine)

First, all the information is not out. The police are acting on the situation correctly. There is nothing out yet which refutes the claims of Zimmerman although there is some which call his account into question. All of that which causes the question of Zimmerman's account has come to light later and not at the scene.

How can "critics know that the investigation is "cursory". It's more like there are a bunch of protesters "foaming at the mouth" while the police department is working in the methodical approach of collecting solid evidence. One cannot and should not rush these things.

911 tapes do not show that Zimmerman initiated contact. He did act outside what he was told to do by following/pursuing but we simply do not know what transpired after. Some has said that Martin was on the phone with a girlfriend saying he was being pursued but that is hear-say at the present time.

Instead of rushing to judgment at the present time, I think we should allow the law enforcement investigators to complete their investigation and see how all this shakes out.

IMO it currently seems as if Zimmerman was over-zealous in his activity. However, according to one report I've heard, Zimmerman was very helpful in notifying police of criminal activity in a few other instances in this neighborhood.
I also think that the anti-gun lobby has politicised this in order to stoke the fire of those who are on the fence.

Our system is one in which justice works slowly giving the perpetrator the benefit of the doubt. Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty. Let's slow down in our rush to judgment and see if the evidence points to Zimmerman being guilty of a crime. I'm confident that, if it does, he will be properly held responsible for his actions.
What a terrible tragedy for both the Martin and Zimmerman families!

_________________
Blessings,
Randy
Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The Net Bible Online

Valid points. Although, arrest warrants could subsequently have been sought as the tapes were reviewed. And, I did note that the poll was based on available (to the public) information.

My interpretation is that Zimmerman initiated contact and admitted he was following Martin. Since Zimmerman was not a law enforcement officer he had no sanction to attempt to impede or stop Martin. He was in violation of the Neighborhood Watch's policies by being armed. At this point, I believe he was not complying with the law. The police did not have Zimmerman drug screened, nor did a background check, common homicide protocols. An officer "corrected" a witness who said she heard Martin cry for help.

_________________
"I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State;
Ronald Reagan

I completely agree with Randy's entire post. If there were any witnesses, they will eventually be brought into the light of scrutiny. If their accounts match that of Zimmerman's and that of the 9-11 recording, then there will probably not be any charges filed. If they conflict, maybe. If they do bring charges, even that does not mean he is guilty. Eventually, if there are charges, there will be a trial and he will be even more scrutinized by a jury of his peers. They will determine his guilt or innocence.

But this is by no means grounds to lobby for more gun control laws, which is, for some reason, where I think this story is headed. I don't necessarily mean that's the intentions of the OP, but of the corporate media that spends so much time covering this story. They are very agenda-driven, or most of them, in my opinion.

_________________
Until He Returns (Rev. 2:17),
Travis

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. ~George Orwell

Respectfully, you are asking folks to judge using spotty, mostly biased information.


You assume what is heard is irrefutable. Which it is not from what I've heard.
Again there is no irrefutable evidence Zimmerman stopped or impeded Martin. A thorough investigation of this theory is necessary. Listening to assumptions and charges from outside parties (like media and protesters) only impedes the progress toward the truth.

Every report I've heard has asserted he was "self-appointed". This means he was acting under no authority but his own. Which BTW is not a criminal offense until he acted and those actions are what are rightly being investigated.

Not "common protocol" in all cases. This is a charge designed to question the investigation without any sensible foundation IMO. Some folks want to blame the "big bad institution" rather than let good people do a thorough investigation. There is a difference between healthy scepticism and outright propaganda designed to promote rebellion and/or distrust. Hear-say and that alone.

You're welcome to your opinion but all that I've seen is making judgments with little or no solid factual foundation.

_________________
Blessings,
Randy
Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The Net Bible Online

I must add that I may have spoken presumptiously. I don't know where the media will go with this. I typed my response before cow's post was added. I shouldn't have responded so hastily. I just think (as I continue to read more about this) we should see the rule of law in this matter, of which I can't speak of definitively at the time, for I am not from there, now am I familiar with their laws. If we (the posters) or residences of that area don't agree with a particular law, then lobby Congress to change them.

But I do see where Randy is coming from in both his posts.

_________________
Until He Returns (Rev. 2:17),
Travis

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. ~George Orwell

I voted "No." The guy who wrote the law has distanced himself from this situation, saying it doesn't apply. That certainly puts the police, and possibly the police chief, in an awkward position, doesn't it?

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

We do need to wait for all the facts to be established to determine whether Zimmerman was acting within the Stand Your Ground law or not. If in fact he did pursue Trayvon Martin after receiving instruction from the 9/11 dispatcher not to, he violated the law. The transcript makes it pretty clear he ignored the dispatcher....

Also, the Sanford Police have some answering to do...namely, what kind of investigative effort did they launch?

Trayvon Martin is killed on February 26th.

A good 2 and half weeks pass when the Sanford Police Chief announced there is no evidence to dispute Zimmerman’s assertion that he shot Martin out of self-defense.

...articles describing previous 911 calls Zimmerman made to police.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/19/2 ... tains.html

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/2 ... itual.html

It's bad when the guy who wrote the law says that it doesn't apply. He made specific reference to Zimmerman following Martin prior to shooting him, when he said it didn't apply. Zimmerman didn't "stand [his]ground." He hunted Martin. Also a national leader for Neighborhood Watch said you're not supposed to confront anyone, and if you do so it subjects you to civil and criminal penalties.

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

Matt. 7:1-2 certainly applies here. Perhaps it would be wise to reserve judgment until all the facts are known.

_________________
Στηθι εδραιος, ως ακμων τυπτομενος. - Ignatius |II Timothy 4:2| All Scripture is NKJV, unless a translation from the Greek text or otherwise noted.
M.A. Theological Studies (New Testament), Faith Seminary, Tacoma WA
Member, Evangelical Theological Society, North American Patristics Society.
Assistant Editor and contributing author of several published and forthcoming publications.

I am not an attorney nor am I a judge. My intent was to make a passive reference to what the law's author has said. It certainly puts everyone in an awkward position, and it doesn't look good.

I am not sure why Mr. Zimmerman was following the shooting victim. But the person who wrote the law said he didn't intend to shield people who follow supposedly "dangerous" people around from liability if they kill them. So it doesn't look good to me.

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

Just to back away from this and not stick my neck out too far, some supporters of the law are also saying, "Wait a minute."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-stand-your-ground-20120325,0,1383205.story

The headline says:

Florida killing raises questions about 'stand your ground' laws
The uproar over a black teen's shooting by a crime-watch volunteer has even some backers of such statutes saying they may need to be altered.

The problem is that possible interpretations of the current law may differ from its intent.

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

I am going to weigh in on this debate, though.

I think (nobody is going to agree with this) that Stand Your Ground should have been an allowable defense for murder at Zimmerman's trial, rather than an immunity that keeps him from even being arrested. I just think that if somebody dies, then someone should be arrested. Let a jury decide.

But I don't think anyone agrees with this...

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

I think the police should have at least treated the scene of the incident as a crime scene so as to preserve the evidence, which they apparently didn't do.

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership