Truth Frequency Radio
Chris Geo
Jul 02, 2013

The last thing I want to do is get wrapped up in the Trayvon Martin fiasco, but I’ve read enough to form an educated opinion. At first, I sided with the shooter because I believe that anyone that violates the sanctity of someone’s home deserves nothing less than death. Also, since evidence is clear that Trayvon Martin was in the business of robbing people’s homes, then he deserved what he got. However, as I read a bit more on the case, I realized that my initial analysis was wrong and the prosecutors are in the right for charging the shooter with murder ; However the mainstream media is pushing for a conviction in this case for all of the wrong reasons. Rather than covering the case from a “rule of law” stance, they are running with the played-out “racial” card and making this about race, not the rule of law.

George Zimmerman was acting as part of a neighborhood watch team and spotted Trayvon Martin in an area where a recent string of burglaries had been committed. He found him acting “suspiciously”, held Trayvon Martin at gunpoint, and then shot him after a scuffle broke out. George Zimmerman was not charged until several weeks later when the victim’s family presented a petition to the US Justice Department demanding charges be filed. At this point, the race card began being heavily played and the people of Sanford, Florida became pawns in the more-than-apparent political agenda behind these events. Divide and Conquer based on race is one of the strongest types of divisive methods, second only to religion. The nation, once again, is split into white vs black (just like Obama, with a black father and white mother).

This is where the legal analysis comes in: The legal standard of Probable Cause is one that we must hold on to and never forget because when we remove that element (as the Federal Government has attempted to do countless times over the last decade with the Patriot Act and the NDAA), we are essentially tying the rope around our own neck. In March of 2013, Trayvon Martin’s family acquired the 911 tape demonstrating that George Zimmerman stalked Trayvon Martin prior to confronting him. This demonstrates that the confrontation was needless and avoidable.

According to the 911 phone calls, Trayvon Martin was “acting suspicious” and George Zimmerman (who was not a law enforcement officer but rather, the Captain of the Neighborhood Watch with as much authority as the Captain of the Football Team) exited his vehicle, threatened Trayvon Martin at gunpoint and detained  him while police arrived at the scene. The problem here is that George Zimmerman failed to meet the legal standard of Probable Cause or even the element of Reasonable Suspicion, even though reasonable suspicion is an element law enforcement must have before executing a Terry Stop (from Terry Vs. Ohio). Reasonable suspicion is not an element afforded to “citizens”, and standards for citizens acting against citizens are much higher.

Many people do not know that Common Law rights exist for shopkeepers and that shopkeepers may, “upon probable cause”, detain a person for shoplifting. However, the common law (along with state laws) explicitly states that the shopkeeper must have probable cause in order to act. Probable cause would be, for instance, video surveillance of the suspect putting an item in his/her pocket. However, the shopkeeper can only detain the suspect for questioning while the police arrive. I mention the shopkeeper’s common law in order to illustrate the extent and elements a non-law enforcement citizen must have in order to act in a law enforcement manner.

The next statute to look at is the Citizens Arrest statute. In order to make a Citizens Arrest, the element of probable cause must be met along with an additional standard. That standard, according to citizens arrest statutes, is that a “felony” (not misdemeanor) must be in progress. Therefore, George Zimmerman was acting completely outside of the rule of law when he stalked and confronted Trayvon Martin to begin with.

The next law to look at is the “Stand Your Ground” law that George Zimmerman claims to be acting under. While I completely agree with the Stand Your Ground law, the context in which George Zimmerman was acting did not fall under the Stand Your Ground Law. If Trayvon Martin pointed a weapon towards George Zimmerman and threatened his life, Zimmerman would have been justified in using lethal force. However, even if Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman while Zimmerman held him at gun point, Zimmerman’s use of lethal force was not justified. Zimmerman would have been partially justified in using his fists and possibly even in shooting Martin in the leg or another non-lethal manner ; However, the use of lethal force here is 100% unjustifiable any way you look at it.

I also used the term “partially justifiable” for a specific reason. If Trayvon Martin was in the process of committing a felony, then Zimmerman would have been justified in detaining him ; However, since Martin only “appeared suspicious”, Zimmerman committed the crimes of stalking and aggravated kidnapping. While I believe Zimmerman was operating in the belief that he was legally justified, the facts of the case do not add up to anything less than second degree murder. Also, since Zimmerman stalked Martin and held him at gunpoint on absolutely no legal basis, Zimmerman was involved in at least one felony (aggravated kidnapping) ; Therefore, Zimmerman could easily be convicted of first degree murder, although a second degree murder conviction tasks the prosecution with less elements to prove.

Do I agree with prosecuting Zimmerman? Not 100%. Scumbags like Trayvon Martin who have a history of burglarizing homes  should be put to death ; However, that should be reserved for a jury to decide after due process, not some “neighborhood watch” guy who was itching to exercise the illusionary authority in his mind because of the self-created title of “Captain of the Neighborhood Watch”. However, what I agree with 100% is natural law and natural law says that you do not violate someone’s right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness and that includes respecting others property, right to move freely and life. And in this case, both the suspect and the victim are guilty of violating natural law.