Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Trayvon - one of many - and if we ACT - the last

Posted 12 years ago on March 23, 2012, 1:36 p.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Trayvon Martin:
‘Stand Your Ground’ Cases From Florida to North Carolina Brought to you by your friends at the NRA and ALEC We know how to buy your politicians - do you?

by Clark Merrefield Mar 23, 2012 4:45 AM EDT the daily beast

The Trayvon Martin tragedy is not the first in which a young person has been injured or killed by a shooter who claimed self-defense in ‘Stand Your Ground’ or ‘Castle Law’ situations. Here are seven other cases, from Florida to North Carolina to Texas.

The Trayvon Martin case has sparked a national debate about so-called Stand Your Ground laws. The idea behind these laws is simple: if you feel your life is being threatened by someone you don’t have to back down. You can even use deadly force, if you feel it is necessary.

The philosophy stems from so-called Castle Laws, on the books to varying degrees in most states, in which a person facing an intruder in his home can defend his property with deadly force (one’s home being one’s castle, that castle is liable to be defended). Stand Your Ground states extend this concept to outside the home—to one’s occupied car, for instance, in Pennsylvania—and of course in Florida, it extends to one’s own person.

But as the Trayvon Martin killing shows, the broad strokes of the law are up for criticism and protest. And Trayvon is not the only young person to lose his life over what can sometimes appear to be a Wild West, shoot-first-or-be-shot mentality. There are other cases that involve teenagers who were assaulted with deadly force under questionable circumstances. Unlike Trayvon, some of the teens were involved in criminal activity, a few even at the time the shootings occurred. The Daily Beast looks at some of those cases.

Carlos Mustelier November 2010 Florida

Thomas Baker was on his normal early morning jog in Town ‘n’ Country, Florida, when he got into a fight with two hooded teens, ages 18 and 16. Carlos Mustelier, the 18-year-old, punched Baker, according to police reports. That’s when Baker pulled out his .45-caliber semiautomatic, for which he had a permit, and shot at Mustelier eight times. Mustelier died. The 16-year-old was not hurt. Neither teen was armed. Neither had a criminal record. Baker and the teens were in fact neighbors. Because of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, prosecutors declined to charge Baker in the killing. “It was a terrible thing,” Baker told the Tampa Bay Times. “He was a good kid,” a friend said of Mustelier, who was “spoiled” by his mother. other-trayvons-merrefield-tease

A memorial to Trayvon Martin (inset) sits outside The Retreat at Twin Lakes community where Trayvon was shot by George Michael Zimmerman while on Neighborhood Watch patrol March 20, 2012 in Sanford, Florida., Roberto Gonzalez / Getty Images

Irving Santana September 2010 Pennsylvania

Marqus Hill had his concealed-gun permit in Pennsylvania revoked in 2005, when he was charged with attempted murder. Hill reapplied for his permit after he was acquitted. Pennsylvania denied his request, but he was able to get a permit in Florida. Thanks to a loophole by which Pennsylvania honors Florida permits, he was again allowed to carry a gun in Pennsylvania. That loophole had fatal consequences for Irving Santana. When Hill saw a couple of unarmed teenagers trying to break into cars in Philadelphia, he brought out his loaded gun and shot 18-year-old Santana 13 times. Hill will face trial for murder in June. He is claiming self-defense under Pennsylvania’s Stand Your Ground law, saying he feared for his life and thought one of the teens was armed.

DeAngelo Davis Miller May 2008 North Carolina

There’s no question that Adrian Harrison killed DeAngelo Davis Miller. But was it self-defense? Harrison, then 20, was hanging out in a townhouse in Claremont with teenage girls who were acquaintances of Miller’s, when Miller, 17, and some friends came into the home and told Harrison to leave. Harrison came back with his brother, a friend, a gun, and a bat—but the teens had left. A short while later, the teens returned, and a fight broke out. Miller was unarmed when he was killed, though defense attorneys claimed Harrison thought Miller had a BB gun, and that Miller and his friends had surrounded Harrison. Harrison and the others fled the scene by car, with one of the men tossing the murder weapon out a window. Harrison claimed self-defense when he was apprehended. The jury deadlocked in June 2012 but according to local reports a retrial is “likely.”

Brandon Robinson March 2008 Texas

It was 10:30 p.m. and a man sitting near his front window saw two teenagers crossing his lawn. “Hey, the blinds are moving,” one of the teens said, according to The Dallas Morning News. Seconds later, a shot rang out. That’s what happened in Kaufman County, when W.C. Frosch, 74, fired through his window at Brandon Robinson, 15, and Devin Nalls, 16. Robinson, who was hit beneath his left arm, and Nalls were crossing Frosch’s lawn to check out a party they heard going on. Robinson survived. “I think I was justified in what I done,” Frosch said. Nalls’s mother, a nurse, was killed in a head-on collision with a drunk driver as she drove the boys to the hospital. Nalls was not at fault in the accident, but an autopsy showed she was intoxicated. The boys survived the wreck. Authorities at first decided not to press charges against Frosch, citing Texas’s Castle Law. But a few months later, Frosch was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and received a $1,000 fine.

Francisco Anguiano July 2007 Texas

Jose Luis Gonzalez of Webb County told police he was asleep in his shed when he heard his nearby trailer being broken into. It wasn’t the first time Gonzalez had dealt with a break-in. Turned out the intruders were four boys on the prowl for snacks, including Francisco Anguiano, 13. Gonzalez fatally shot Anguiano. “It was a case where it was my life or theirs,” Gonzalez said after he was acquitted of murder. Attorneys agreed that Gonzalez forced the unarmed boys to their knees, and shot Anguiano in the back with a shotgun—Gonazalez said he thought Anguiano had lunged at him. One of the boys testified that Gonzalez had them remove Anguiano’s body. Twinkies and cookies were found in Anguiano’s pockets.

Trayvon is not the only young person to lose his life over what can sometimes appear to be a Wild West, shoot-first-or-be-shot mentality.

Christopher Cote September 2006 Florida

Christopher Cote, 19, and his family had just moved to The Acreage community, near West Palm Beach. According to court details published in the Palm Beach Post, Cote had been drinking beer and was out walking his dog at 3 a.m. when he had an argument with 63-year-old Jose Tapanes. Cote returned home and asked his family to call police. They said they didn’t want any trouble with the new neighbors. Cote returned to Tapanes’s home and knocked—or by Tapanes’s account, banged—on his front door. Tapanes op ened the door and shot Cote once in the chest with a shotgun. Cote fell back onto Tapanes’s front lawn. Tapanes then shot Cote at point-blank range in the stomach, killing the teenager. Cote was unarmed. Tapanes claimed that before the shooting Cote was being confrontational. Tapanes was acquitted of manslaughter in July 2011. “I think the jury said it all,” he said after the verdict.

Ben Neil Smith June 1988 Washington, D.C.

Carl Rowan had a long and distinguished career as a journalist and syndicated columnist—a writer who used his pen to champion civil rights causes and rail against the American gun lobby. But he was decidedly pro-gun when a group of teenagers decided to use his pool one early morning. Rowan claimed Ben Neil Smith, 18, lunged at him after Rowan confronted the group, and Rowan shot Smith in the wrist with an unregistered .22-caliber pistol in self-defense. “I am not for unilateral gun control, in which I leave my family naked to the druggies and the crooks out there,” Rowan said in response to charges of hypocrisy. A pro-gun group, Gun Owners of America, offered Rowan legal assistance. “I want you to know that I am delighted that you and your family escaped injury because you were able to successfully use a firearm to repel an intruder at your home,” GOA president Larry Pratt wrote in a letter. Rowan was tried on a lesser weapons-possession charge—not assault. The jury deadlocked, and the judge declared a mistrial. Rowan was never re-tried.

42 Comments

42 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by Puzzlin (2898) 12 years ago

2 million people and counting have signed the petition for Trayvon

www.change.org

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 12 years ago

Wow, I think this petition to prosecute has found more than general acceptance.


Prosecute the killer of our son, 17-year-old Trayvon Martin by Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton 2,050,437 SUPPORTERS

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 12 years ago

This petition has made history, and indeed it should. We live in different times, so many are waking up and smelling reality. It's in the air and it's contagious.

"Truth alone will endure; all the rest will be swept away before the tide of time..."

Mahatma Gandhi

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 12 years ago

This is a very good cause. Resulting from a very bad tragedy.

People have had enough.

It is time to get rid of the shit. All toxins to society.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 12 years ago

These cases illustrate the horror of this crazy gun law. I hope many here read them and understand fully why this law needs to be repealed, sooner is better.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

all these examples show the dead ones as aggressors. not so in the trayvon case. this is what the law is for.. if people come on your property uninvited , confrontational, then you should be able to shoot them if needed. it will take a little while but those arrogant enough to think they can do as they please to others will eventually figure out that doing so can end in death and will avoid being stupid enough to cross that line.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

HAVE YOU READ THE LAW????


776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013. The law we are talking about has nothing to do with YOUR PROPERTY


SIMPLI FIED: 776.012 A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.


If a man across the street waves a knife at you, this law, because you believe you feel threatened - allows you to kill that man!
Even if the knife is a rubber Halloween prop.


If you see a man break into a closed store at night, this law, because you believe he is comiting a forcable felony - allows you to kill that man! Even if he is the owner who forgot his key.


Stand Your Ground laws, which eliminate the longstanding legal requirement that a person threatened outside of his or her own home retreat rather than use force, are the latest manifestation of the political strength of the gun rights movement. First adopted in Florida in 2005, Stand Your Ground laws, drafted and promoted by the National Rifle Association, have since been enacted in some form in more than 20 states. The Trayvon Martin shooting suggests that, in the rush to adopt these laws, lawmakers and gun advocates have gone too far in authorizing the use of deadly force.

Stand Your Ground laws should only allow what their name suggests; they should not encourage vigilantism.

Although the facts of Trayvon Martin’s death remain uncertain, we know that George Zimmerman, who was active in the local neighborhood crime watch, suspected Martin was a criminal and shot him on a Florida street.
Despite being instructed by police to stay away, Zimmerman confronted Martin. The situation escalated quickly into violence. The police have yet to arrest Zimmerman, apparently because Florida’s Stand Your Ground law entitled Zimmerman to use deadly force.

Florida legislators, however, insist the Stand Your Ground law does not provide a defense for people like Zimmerman, who pursue and confront someone. Florida Senator Durrell Peadon, who sponsored the law, said that Zimmerman “has no protection under my law.” According to state Representative Dennis Baxley, “There’s nothing in this statute that authorizes you to pursue and confront people.” The law, Baxley notes, was designed only “to prevent you from being attacked by other people.”

The problem is that nothing in Peadon and Baxley’s law says this. It provides that any person may use deadly force when “he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.” So long as someone reasonably thinks he or someone else is in danger, he can shoot to kill, regardless of whether the shooter is the one who initiated the hostile confrontation.

Indeed, given the law’s authorization of the use of deadly force to protect other people and, as the law also provides, “to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony,” Florida’s law unambiguously authorizes people to pursue and confront others. Whatever the merits of standing your ground when personally threatened, Florida’s law goes much further and encourages vigilantism. It tells people, who today are increasingly likely to be carrying concealed weapons, that they can pretend to be police officers and use their guns to protect and serve the broader public.

Stand Your Ground laws should only allow what their name suggests: permit people who are threatened to stand their own ground and protect themselves. They should not give people the right to use force to defend someone else’s ground. Under no circumstances should people be able to confront others in a hostile manner, end up using deadly force, and escape punishment.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

The Carlos Mustelier killing sure seems justifiable to me.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

eigth times ????

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

It depends if those shots hit vital organs or not, it doesn't say in that blurb. If someone is attacking you (2 on 1 in this case), you shoot to kill. The only reason in this case for not using 8 bullets on someone attacking you is that he should have saved a couple for the other attacker.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

well you see dont you that the wording of the law is way above the average 8th grade reading level of most of the population. i can see easily that that means when someone is about to attack me, break into my house, or whatever. i can shoot them. thats a good law. why should i have to run and hide? the tricky part is the 'forcible felony' most people might not understand that this means 'personal' forcing you the person to submit to something' this is obviously a mistake by the police that do not comprehend the law and the 'neighbor hood watch' types that cant listen to rules. its not the fault of the law. its the fault of lack of commonsense of the few. you cant legislate for that you have to legislate for the majority not the few. with this incident, people will learn and adjust to the law. just like all the other laws the goody two shoes support. its a good thing when everyone believes that everyone else has a gun. cuts down on crime overall.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 12 years ago

Really, so you like the shoot first laws. Just make sure there's no eye witnesses and your word it's self defense, and you are good to go. Justifiable homicide. Go home tell your wife you love her and your kids. Tell them to be honest, about respecting others. Eat nice home cooked meal with your loving family while your victim rots in grave that you murdered but cleverly did it legality so we can always use your word over another's very life.

Criminals love these laws. It literally gives them a license to kill. Just make sure there's no eye witness and shoot them through the front of their body. Tell the police they were attacking, you FELT threatened and SLAM DUNK!

It seems like we do live in your world gestopo. This is the world you love and cherish. You love these laws and if you need to some day commit justifiable homicide you'll just have follow a few simple rules and you too will have the trophy for killing well done. As long as we can somehow make ourselves feel these things are for the best and justice is really a real thing anyway. We can just sleep like babies never worrying that we might have done anyhting wrong. It's only if you cuaght that you will feel bad. Right???

Dead wrong. We don't want your world Gestopo. Nice name by the way. Shows where your head's at.

The Puzzler

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

you must be a criminal. thats the only reason you would fear such a law. and when your wife and your family is crying over your grave cause some idiot didnt like the color of your eyes. when they are on the tv raging against the the senseless murder of father husband brother, i can say well he coulda shot the guy but he didnt like that idea he wanted to stand there and let the guy beat him to death for 20 bucks in his wallet. on principle / 'if only he had had a gun/ we do want my world

[-] 3 points by Puzzlin (2898) 12 years ago

Gestopo, proudly says to me: "you must be a criminal."

I say: YOUR A TROLL, TROLL!!! GESTOPO

Calling me a criminal makes you an instant troll Moron!!!

(And what I really fear is people like you driving debate into the gutter so we never get out the shit hole we find ourselves.)

ANd, no, don't expect my respect, no more, no how, you clearly have not earned it troll. You've crossed the line, clearly, and there's no debate. I'm no criminal so your insult does make you a troll no matter what you say from here forward.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

its true enough . why else fear such a law that would enable you to protect yourself and family?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 12 years ago

I've got a hog leg.

The Puzzler

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

its like a criminal to part things out

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 12 years ago

oh yeah, now you make perfect sense, my mushrooms have just peaked.

Puzzled...

[-] -1 points by VantagePoint250624 (-51) 12 years ago

It breaks the hearts of many, like you Dee, to know such laws could likely assure hate monging mouthy types, like yourself and epa1, get the gimp twisted on your final hefty sack, by a seeming helpless woman packing a palm sized tip up barreled beretta.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

You can always spot an Rs - even if you don't see the hole
by how they take an opponent's words and twist them into a lie


I have no objection to any one who is licensed to carry a licensed gun

[-] 0 points by imfumai (1) 12 years ago

Do have your license to use your licensed free speech?

[-] -1 points by VantagePoint250624 (-51) 12 years ago

The second amendment trumps any such "license".

It's a good idea not to have any objection to those persons for exercising their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT as opposed to merely condoning only those buying privilege from corrupt government selling sanctioned jurisdiction.

[-] 1 points by Skippy2 (485) 12 years ago

The FBI Civil Rights Division and FDLE are involved in the investigation now. Instead of doing an investigation by media, I would rather let the investigation conclude. I can allways join the hysteria later.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

I agree - regarding Trayvon
BUT
the stand your ground law IS GUILTY


[-] 1 points by Skippy2 (485) 12 years ago

I simply dont trust the account as reported in the media. Even the new leaked info. The media is wrong so many times and even when they are right, they spin like crazy. Any coincidence that this is selling papers and increaseing ratings? Media is a business whose bottom line dependes on tragedy. This may or may not be a "Stand your ground" case. We wont know till after the investigation and Grand Jury.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by hoot (313) 12 years ago

the stand your ground law has little to do with the trayvon. their was no need for self defense and therefore, there is no way Zimmerman could be protected by this law.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

according to zimmerman, he is

[-] 0 points by JonFromSLC (-107) from West Valley City, UT 12 years ago

No need for self defense? I dunno about you, but if a 6'3" black kid punched me, and beat my head into the ground, i'd shoot his stupid ass too.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 12 years ago

Now we're knee deep in the muck. It's all about unintended consequences which at the time when all these crazy gun laws were being passed most didn't realize. It was issue that was harder to understand so many never thought very deeply about it as is typical of these more complex issues. The unintended consequences could not be realized until we had this tragedy and now people finally are getting it.

At least there's hope that eventually the truth and justice does prevail. God help us all if it does not in this case where Trayvon's murderer is still free while Trayvon will never walk this earth again.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

Sorry- you are missing the point
The point is the the buyers of this law got exactly what they wanted
the exact consequences - more gun sales

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 12 years ago

Well, sure, the NRA, with all the gun dealers, love laws like this. In fact, I am considering purchasing an easily concealable 22 once they pass the shoot first law in my state. Since the criminal becomes empowered by such laws I will have no choice. When I was ten years old I had my first experience with guns as a loaded revolver was put to my head. The bullet was not discharged to my brain but that feeling of helplessness is one I will never forget.

If this country becomes the wild wild west all over again, which it will if this sit gains no justice, then I will have no choice. You see this sit demands justice or the signal will go out, loud and clear, to all the criminal types just how to easily pull one of these justifiable murders. Meanwhile the police will round up more pot smokers since they are their real problem.

This post needs to stay up. Like I said, JUSTICE MUST come for this murder or the consequences will be monumental.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

Puzzlin- IMHO - a better optiion than a gun - that DOES help the NRA-
VOTE

and make clear to everyone you know that on the surface,
this is racism, gun nuts, and police incompetence

At it's heart are the politicians bought by the NRA and ALEC
Make sure everyone that you know votes AGAINST NRA supporters

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 12 years ago

No doubt. The NRA is behind the whole mess and again it can traced back to greediness. They want to sell more guns and become richer. This MO is always the popular ONE.

Always follow the money, it's usually the revealing story behind the story.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 12 years ago

Aggressors or not, I think firing at someone 8 times, Carlos Mustelier

Shooting someone 13 times, Irving Santana

Forcing a kneeling position and shooting them in the back, Francisco Anguiano

is way past reasonable.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

Dont tell that to the NRA or ALEC

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 12 years ago

Used to be the NRA was reasonable, not the apparently rabid 'my gun, my way' group they appear to be now.

Remember when police used to have to attend hearings when gun fire had occurred? Those hearings dealt with what was termed excessive force.

As a child I was taught gun safety, to be sure of my target, to be sure, if need arose, I was under threat of my life, and that shoot to incapacitate was the option of choice, if I were.

What happened to common sense?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

The NRA - gun - common sense is in the same place as
abortion law common sence,
anti-voting law common sense,
trickle down common sense,
tax common sense they have all been purchased by special interests

I must say that it is shocking how a disgusting personal disaster like this
can be linked back to money in politics
get rid of Citizens United & Buckley!
http://www.nycga.net/groups/restore-democracy

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

ura racist!

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Secretariat (33) 12 years ago

""NATO is staging "Massacre of Christians in Syria by Muslims", by bringing Al Qaida and other radical Islamists to Syria, in order to initiate a war, where they can nuke Iran, give a lesson to rising China, control Middle East oil resources, and allow some people to print as much money as they wish by using petrodollars, so they can control the society and the world through their wealth and power. This will also allow capitalism to continue by breaking the Eastern and the Socialist spirituality which is growing around the world and which is the biggest threat to capitalist ruling elite. ""

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by JonFromSLC (-107) from West Valley City, UT 12 years ago

This whole thing stinks of media bias, and seeing as how no one has any evidence that he was "murdered" I'd lean more toward a shitstorm that was looking for a place to happen.

Facts: Treyvon punched Zimmerman. Treyvon beat Zimmermans head into the pavement. Treyvon picked the wrong dude to mess with (someone with a gun) Eye witnesses corroborate the story of Treyvon attacking Zimmerman. Media spins it as a white guy murders an innocent black kid to stir up the morons who blindly follow what the race baiters (Jackson, Sharpton) shit out.

No one really knows what happened aside from the dead kid and the guy who made him that way. Oh ya, and the eye witnesses and the dr that testified that his patient (Zimmerman) had injuries that are exactly in line with the story of Zimmerman getting attacked.

Don't jump to conclusions just because some 50 IQ lawyer tries to use big words to make people think he's smart when they don't even know what the words mean themselves.

Black people kill black people every day in LA. Where's the president and Sharpton and Jackson for those? Oh ya that's right, it's ok when a black guy kills another black guy, and it's ok when 2 black guys set a white kid on fire, but HOLY SHIT if a 1/2 white 1/2 mexican guy kills a black kid, lets fucking burn the whole country down!

You are all idiots. Let the police do what they do. Investigate. When they come out with some actual facts, then you can conclude what you wish.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

simple question - you claim "Eye witnesses corroborate the story of Treyvon attacking Zimmerman."
if you are telling the truth, name them both
OR
are you a liar?

[-] 0 points by JonFromSLC (-107) from West Valley City, UT 12 years ago

I don't know their names considering the Police don't release names of eye witnesses before they've concluded their investigation due to not wanting them to get shot. Especially if they testify in court.

Every news article I've read about this (and there have been many considering the shit storm this whole thing has caused) have said there are eye witnesses that corroborate (that means say the same thing) the story that Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked and was yelling for help.

That along with the injuries Zimmerman had the night of the shooting might make someone with an IQ above 40 to stop and think that maybe the story isn't exactly what it seems.