Trayvon Martin Case

[ExiledInIllinois]

You would think so, but there must have been some reason he wasn't already arrested.

 

Incompetent police chief? He has stepped down, even know it was a close 3-2 vote of no-confidence.

 

I mean this happened a month ago. The process at the very best was very non-transparent. Why did the Martin family have to sue to get the 911 tapes released? Like they said, in Ohio... They were released right away. Why would you want to supress that? Future law suits?

Edited March 23, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois

[Jauronimo]

Apparently, Trayvon looks like Obama's unborn son. GUILTY!

 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/23/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[ExiledInIllinois]

I didn't realize anyone had been convicted of a crime by a court of law. I guess I just learned something.

 

There is your problem... You didn't realize.

 

Mr. Potato Head... That (going to a court of law) wasn't even going to be an option... Hence, "justice." That is why people are so upset. Yeah, let it go to a court of law if the Grand Jury deems it. I see you came in from Mars again and chimed in with another stupid no substance remark... What is new in AK? I see the Matanuska thunder!@#$ is coming in early. Lay off it dude!

[....lybob]

I didn't realize anyone had been convicted of a crime by a court of law. I guess I just learned something.

doubtful

 

Alaskans = Canadians without the high moral standards, good manners, and quality education.

[Rob's House]

So if someone... NOT a cop pulls a weapon... You are going to lay down and be passive and do what they say? Hell yeah, I am going to pick a fight right then and there! Sure you might end up dead... But right then and there is your best chance... You start doing what the NON-cop says... You will almost certainly become a victim.

 

Fight or flight... Martin choose to fight. What is wrong with that? Besides ending up dead... Which crime experts warn people that if you start doing what the guy with the weapon tells you... That is a given death sentence most of the time.

 

Some guy stalks you... What are you gonna do. Stand your ground or run? What if he is John Wayne Gacy. Gonna deal with the dude?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now if Trayvon runs... Doesn't he look guilty?

No, that's not correct. You're not supposed to go anywhere with them. However, if all they're demaning is that you don't move your best odds are to stop.

 

It's interesting that you take a simple fact pattern and plug in the many gaping holes with wild baseless speculation, and then treat that speculation as fact. That you infer from the facts available that the most likely scenario is that this guy ran the kid down and pulled a gun on him, and the kid staring a gun in the face decided instead of backing off to try to fight through bullets is illuminating. Then characterizing such an idiotic decision as somehow being macho and masculine is absurd.

 

It's not just you; this whole thread is a perfect example of why liberals can't be trusted to act rationally. Every liberal who has opined in this thread has immediately plugged the few facts that are available into their paradigm, and treated it as the default. By contrast, the more conservative posters have taken a more reserved and measured approach of asking what are the facts before jumping to wild conclusions based on speculation and prejudice.

[yall]

I think lots of people are assuming things are facts in this thread regardless of their political persuasion.

[....lybob]

No, that's not correct. You're not supposed to go anywhere with them. However, if all they're demaning is that you don't move your best odds are to stop.

 

It's interesting that you take a simple fact pattern and plug in the many gaping holes with wild baseless speculation, and then treat that speculation as fact. That you infer from the facts available that the most likely scenario is that this guy ran the kid down and pulled a gun on him, and the kid staring a gun in the face decided instead of backing off to try to fight through bullets is illuminating. Then characterizing such an idiotic decision as somehow being macho and masculine is absurd.

 

It's not just you; this whole thread is a perfect example of why liberals can't be trusted to act rationally. Every liberal who has opined in this thread has immediately plugged the few facts that are available into their paradigm, and treated it as the default. By contrast, the more conservative posters have taken a more reserved and measured approach of asking what are the facts before jumping to wild conclusions based on speculation and prejudice.

This is just crazy in any civilized place no one without some kind of legal authority can legally impede your way by force or threat of force on public property - you could be subject to a citizen arrest but the person so doing so would have the burden of proof to prove you were involved in a criminal act and failing to do so could be sued for false arrest. Edited March 23, 2012 by ....lybob

[TheMadCap]

Did I just hear the President say that if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon?

 

 

What does that even mean? Obama can't tell black people apart?

[Rob's House]

This is just crazy in any civilized place no one without some kind of legal authority can legally impede your way by force or threat of force on public property - you could be subject to a citizen arrest but the person so doing so would have the burden of proof to prove you were involved in a criminal act and failing to do so could be sued for false arrest.

But you still haven't established that Zimmerman impeded his right of way at all, by threat or otherwise. And not to split hairs but the tort your referring to is false imprisonment.

[IDBillzFan]

What does that even mean? Obama can't tell black people apart?

Now that's just funny as hell.

 

Apparently Sharpton and Farrakhan are in Florida selling t shirts and stuff that say "I am Trayvon" on them. This was probably Obama's way of doing the same thing in lieu of having time to put the t-shirt on.

[....lybob]

But you still haven't established that Zimmerman impeded his right of way at all, by threat or otherwise. And not to split hairs but the tort your referring to is false imprisonment.

wrong again Bob

 

 

Can I Sue for False Arrest?78

Ask a Lawyer

By michaelk

 

 

Can I Sue for False Arrest?

If you were arrested or detained by the police or another person and you feel their actions were unjustified, is it possible to sue for false arrest? Under some circumstances, it is. Police misconduct does not always require a victim to receive a physical injury or suffer from police brutality. It can also be a case of infringement on one's individual civil rights. Even private citizens have been charged and found guilty of false arrest.

 

 

What is False Arrest?

The legal definition of false arrest is the unlawful restraint of a person's liberty without legal authority. This charge cannot only be leveled against police officers, but also private security agents or even individual citizens. In fact, the false arrest charges that most often find their way to court are made against private security agents.

 

The most important phrase in the definition of false arrest is "without legal authority". Even though some arrests may turn out to be unjustified, if they were made with legal authority, they cannot be classified as false arrests. For instance, it is legal for a police officer to arrest someone during the course of an investigation of a crime. If that suspect is later found innocent, that does not constitute false arrest. The arresting officer had the legal authority to make the arrest.

 

False arrest charges can be filed against private citizens if they wrongly detain someone by making a citizen's arrest. A citizen's arrest is only legal if that citizen actually witnessed the crime being committed and can positively identify the criminal. They are also required to call the legal authorities immediately to carry out a formal arrest. If the situation does not fit all of those criteria, the arresting citizen could be sued for false arrest.

 

It is rare for a police officer to actually be charged with false arrest. In order for that to happen, the police office must deliberately detain someone who did not commit a crime. For instance, if an officer were to detain a black shopper for no reason and had no real probable cause, the shopper could initiate a false arrest charge. He could possibly receive punitive damages on the grounds of discrimination if the court decides in favor of the shopper.

 

 

False Arrest is a Tort

False arrest is considered a civil crime, otherwise known as a tort. This type of crime is classified as a misdemeanor. In some circumstances when a person was illegally confined, the charge can change to false imprisonment. If someone was illegally detained and transported, it can escalate to a charge of kidnapping.

 

If you believe you have been a victim of false arrest and want to file charges, you should seek the services of a tort lawyer who will look at the specifics of your case. The lawyer will be able to advise you if you have enough evidence to prove a false arrest charge. Although it is complex, if you can prove your case, you may be eligible to receive punitive damages.

[Rob's House]

wrong again Bob

Actually you're right on that. False imprisonment is more commonly applied to instances where civilians are the ones doing the detaining, but many jurisdictions consider the terms interchangeable.

[Alaska Darin]

There is your problem... You didn't realize.

 

Mr. Potato Head... That (going to a court of law) wasn't even going to be an option... Hence, "justice."

What, your liberal ass doesn't like when the system you people worship doesn't work? What you people without the facts want isn't "justice".

That is why people are so upset.

"People" are "upset" because they're easily manipulated by the media that caters to both their out of control emotions and their stupidity.

Yeah, let it go to a court of law if the Grand Jury deems it. I see you came in from Mars again and chimed in with another stupid no substance remark...

Finally, something you're actually qualified to comment on. Of course, you're wrong but that's expected given your track record.

What is new in AK? I see the Matanuska thunder!@#$ is coming in early. Lay off it dude!

Yeah, that's my problem. I'm a huge doper. I'd love to have an blind, independent review of each of our posting histories and see what the results are on this topic. I'm sure you'd come out really well.

 

doubtful

 

Alaskans = Canadians without the high moral standards, good manners, and quality education.

 

I love when you over-matched dimwits try to play rough. It's like watching a puppy try to nip a lion's tail.Do everyone a favor and head over to "Off the Wall" to start another "So" thread.

[3rdnlng]

wrong again Bob

 

 

Why are you talking about false arrests and false imprisonment? Nobody here on this board can do anything but speculate about what happened.

[DaveinElma]

Well what do you know, little Trayvon wasn't so innocent in this.

 

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-15/news/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-zimmerman-letter-20120315_1_robert-zimmerman-letter-unarmed-black-teenager

 

Zimmerman told police he acted in self-defense. Police found blood on his face and the back of his head as well as grass on the back of his shirt.

 

That jibes with what Cheryl Brown's teenage son witnessed while walking his dog that night. Thirteen-year-old Austin stepped out his front door and heard people fighting, he told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday.

 

"I heard screaming and crying for help," he said. "I heard, 'Help me.' "

 

It was dark, and the boy did not see how the fight started, in fact, he only saw one person, a man in a red shirt — Zimmerman — who was on the ground.

[birdog1960]

What, your liberal ass doesn't like when the system you people worship doesn't work? What you people without the facts want isn't "justice".

 

"People" are "upset" because they're easily manipulated by the media that caters to both their out of control emotions and their stupidity.

 

Finally, something you're actually qualified to comment on. Of course, you're wrong but that's expected given your track record.

 

Yeah, that's my problem. I'm a huge doper. I'd love to have an blind, independent review of each of our posting histories and see what the results are on this topic. I'm sure you'd come out really well.

 

 

 

I love when you over-matched dimwits try to play rough. It's like watching a puppy try to nip a lion's tail.Do everyone a favor and head over to "Off the Wall" to start another "So" thread.

i was thinking about starting one on civility and respect as effective tools in debate.

[3rdnlng]

i was thinking about starting one on civility and respect as effective tools in debate.

 

What the !@#$ are you thinking, you low life mother !@#$ing jizzball?

[DC Tom]

I think lots of people are assuming things are facts in this thread regardless of their political persuasion.

 

I think lots of people wouldn't know a fact if it bit them in the ass.

[CookieG]

 

 

On the civil side, and with respect to the Equal Protection Clause, it is somewhat difficult to bring against a municipality. Also, there needs to be some kind of pattern and practice or an articulated policy to show disparate treatment or metrics to demonstrate disparate impact. And....(check my facts on this cause I'm not sure), I think that the only remedy in an EP action is injunctive relief. That is fantastic so that other folks don't have to go through the same problems, but it wouldn't provide much in the way of financial compensation for the family.

 

EPCs are not impossible, just difficult.

 

I'm not sure if you are merely talking about a civil suit by say, the kids' parents, or are looking for federal authority to become involved.

 

If it is the latter, the Shepard/Byrd Hate Crimes Act confers jurisdiction.

 

18 USC § 249 - HATE CRIME ACTS

 

(a) In General.—

(1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin.— Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—

(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if—

(i) death results from the offense; or

(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

 

If they determine is was racially motivated, he could get life.

 

 

The better play is to use 1983 civil action to enforce a due process claim against Zimmerman. They don't have to rely on issues of protected classifications and race. If they can demonstrate that Zimmerman was somehow acting under color of law (which is gonna be a doozy of a creative argument - but not impossible if the local and state police somehow recognized his community watch group as a "partner" in combatting crime or something to that effect), they can hang the "deprivation of life, liberty, property" clause around his neck, and by extension, the neck's of the munipical authorities, via 1983.

 

1983 is complicated legislation and doesn't confer any substantive legal claim. It just kind of makes other laws broader. If you know how to use it right, though, it has some punch. I also don't remember how 1983 operates in conjunction with common law tort and contract actions. So if his attorney's can find SOME precedent for using common law respondeat superior claims in 1983 actions, it could be a windfall for Martin's family because they can use Zimmerman to get into the municipality's pockets. Otherwise, their claims for damages are going to hit a wall after Zimmerman files Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

 

I'd agree that "color of law" would be pretty difficult to show, they would have to show a pretty good relationship between Zimmerman and the local police. Not impossible, I agree, but highly unlikely.

 

The irony is that I have a strong suspicion that Zimmerman himself thought he was acting under the color of law. He seems to have the wannabe thing going on. Of course, that's not the test.

 

Intentional torts aren't discharged in a 7. Not that it matters, the guy doesn't have anything anyways.

[3rdnlng]

I'm not sure if you are merely talking about a civil suit by say, the kids' parents, or are looking for federal authority to become involved.

 

If it is the latter, the Shepard/Byrd Hate Crimes Act confers jurisdiction.

 

18 USC § 249 - HATE CRIME ACTS

 

(a) In General.—

(1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin.— Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—

(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if—

(i) death results from the offense; or

(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

 

If they determine is was racially motivated, he could get life.

 

 

 

 

I'd agree that "color of law" would be pretty difficult to show, they would have to show a pretty good relationship between Zimmerman and the local police. Not impossible, I agree, but highly unlikely.

 

The irony is that I have a strong suspicion that Zimmerman himself thought he was acting under the color of law. He seems to have the wannabe thing going on. Of course, that's not the test.

 

Intentional torts aren't discharged in a 7. Not that it matters, the guy doesn't have anything anyways.

 

Do you think you might be taking a leap here? In light of Tawana Brawley and the Duke lacrosse team you might just want to sit back and see how the evidence develops. Zimmerman deserves due process while too many people on this board think a lynch mob is the way to go. Did you hear of the white boy that got gas thrown all over him and then burned?