Trayvon Martin Case: Timeline of Events
Mar 23, 2012 5:00pm
(Image Credit: ABC News; Orange County Jail)
The slaying of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, a Florida high school student who was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, a self-appointed neighborhood watch captain, has captured national attention.
Petitions calling for justice for Martin have exploded, amid allegations of racism and calls for more scrutiny into how local police handled the investigation. George Zimmerman has yet to be charged in the case.
Below is a timeline of events:
Feb. 26: Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old Florida high school student, is found shot and killed, in Sanford, Fla., a community north of Orlando.
Several eyewitnesses report to police that they heard a scuffle, then a cry for help, and then a gunshot.
According to the Sanford police report, George Zimmerman, 28, a self-appointed neighborhood watch captain, is found armed with a handgun, standing over Martin. He has a bloody nose and a wound in the back of his head.
Martin is unresponsive and pronounced dead at the scene. He has no weapons on him, only a pack of Skittles and a bottle of iced tea.
Zimmerman tells police he killed Martin in self defense. Taking him at his word, police do not arrest him, nor administer a drug or alcohol test. They also did not run a background check.
March 9: Trayvon Martin’s family demands that police release the 911 tapes or make an arrest nearly one month after Martin was killed. Police declined to comment at the time, but told ABC News the tapes would be released the following week.
March 12: ABC News uncovers questionable police conduct in the investigation of the fatal shooting of Martin, including the alleged “correction” of at least one eyewitness’ account.
Sanford Police Chief Billy Lee said there is no evidence to dispute Zimmerman’s assertion that he shot Martin out of self-defense.
March 16: Police recordings made the night Zimmerman allegedly shot and killed Martin sent the boy’s mother screaming from the room and prompted his father to declare, “He killed my son,” a family representative tells ABC News.
ABC News affiliate WFTV publishes excerpts from the 911 calls.
One of several petitions for Zimmerman’s arrest has garnered more than 250,000 signatures on a change.org site, and at one point signatures were pouring in at the rate of 10,000 an hour, according to the website.
March 18: Martin’s family asks Attorney General Eric Holder and the FBI to get involved in the investigation of their son’s death.
March 19: A 16-year-old girl tells Benjamin Crump, the Martin family’s attorney, about the last moments of Martin’s life, ABC News is there exclusively. Martin was on the phone with her when George Zimmerman began following him. She recounted that she told Martin to run, then she heard some pushing, then the line went dead.
The U.S. Justice Department announces it has launched an investigation into Martin’s slaying.
ABC News also learns that Zimmerman violated major principles of the Neighborhood Watch manual, which states, “it should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers, and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles.”
The state attorney in Seminole County, Fla., announces that a grand jury will review the evidence of the case on April 10.
March 20: Sanford police department admits to ABC News that investigators missed a possible racist remark by the shooter as he spoke to police dispatchers moments before the killing.
March 21: During a heated meeting over Trayvon Martin’s death, Sanford city commissioners conducted a vote of “no confidence” against embattled Police Chief Billy Lee. Three of five commissioners voted against the chief.
The city manager now decided whether or not to let Lee go.
Martin’s parents join hundreds of protesters in New York City for the “Million Hoodie March,” demanding justice for the slain 17-year-old.
A single online petition calling for Travyvon’s killer’s arrest has nearly 900,000 signatures and is now the fastest growing petition in internet history, according to Change.org. Tweets from celebrities, such as Justin Bieber and Spike Lee, helped fuel wide interest in the case.
The public relations person for Benjamin Crump, the attorney representing the Martin family, tells ABC News they received 418 media calls in one day.
March 22: Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee announces he is temporarily stepping down amid accusations that his department bungled the investigation into the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.
Florida Gov. Rick Scott also announced State Attorney Norman Wolfinger, another key investigator tied to the case, agreed to withdraw and Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll would lead a special new task force to prevent future tragedies.
Martin’s family meets officials from the Department of Justice.
Thousands rallied in Sanford, organized by the Reverend Al Sharpton, to demand Zimmerman’s arrest. Sanford police continue to accept Zimmerman’s claim that the shooting was in self defense.
March 23: Roughly 50 schools in Florida stage walkouts to protest the killing of Trayvon Martin and show support for the change.org petition demanding arrest of George Zimmerman.
The online petition surpassed 1.5 million signatures, making it all time fastest growing petition in change.org’s history, according to change.org.
At a White House press conference, President Obama takes time to address the Trayvon Martin case, saying, If I had a son he’d look like Trayvon.”
“Hoodies on the Hill,” a group of Capitol Hill staffers, also rally in support of Martin.
Fox News contributor Geraldo Rivera adds to the controversy, igniting a firestorm of criticism when he seemed to indicate that Trayvon Martin’s apparel was to blame for the shooting.
A second “Million Hoodie March” is scheduled to take place in Philadelphia tonight.
Castle doctrine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as a car or place of work) as a place in which the person has certain protections and immunities and may in certain circumstances attack an intruder without becoming liable to prosecution.[1] Typically deadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another".[1] The doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law of most states.
The term derives from the historic English common law dictum that "an Englishman's home is his castle".
This concept was established as English law by 17th century jurist Sir Edward Coke, in his The Institutes of the Laws of England, 1628.[2] This was carried by colonists to the New World, who later removed "Englishman" from the phrase, which thereby became simply the Castle Doctrine.[2] The term has been used to imply a person's absolute right in England to exclude anyone from their home, although this has always had restrictions, and since the late twentieth century bailiffs have also had increasing powers of entry.[3]
Focus Must Be Narrower
Adam Winkler Adam Winkler is a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law and the author of "Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America." He is on Twitter. March 21, 2012 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.
The Cafe' [ The Think Tank]
Comments
Post a Comment