Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: gunsmith on March 20, 2012, 12:35:59 AM
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/19/department-justice-opens-investigation-into-case-black-teenager-killed-by/?intcmp=trending
Guy is "captain" of neighborhood watch, follows suspicious teen, calls 911 then shoots teen.
Even if a good shoot, so far doesn't seem like a smart one, guy was in his car and could have driven a safe distance as teen was unarmed and on foot.
I've been wrong before though...I still owe cassandrassdaddy a nickle!
-
thats a tough case to call. lots of variables. the shooters got history. the kid was 6 foot plus but skinny. there is evidence they fought before shooting
-
Seems to me that between neighborhood watch 911-addicted "black kids don't belong around here" nutball and unarmed kid running to store for snack, where kid running to store for snack ends up dead, I wouldn't assume that the unarmed kid running to store for a snack started something. Even if he's six feet tall.
-
Calling 911 because the kid was walking around in the rain?
If there was a fight, it was probably the result of an attempted and illegal "citizens arrest" - ironically meaning that it was the kid who had a right to stand his ground, not junior batman.
-
This is why you should avoid intervening in things unless you're really really clear what is going on.
-
This happened about 20 miles from where I live. Things are really starting to heat up. Couple things are not right after the fact. The TV keeps showing photos of the deceased that were taken when he was about 14 to make it appear that he was a little kid. I'm sure many of the ne'er-do-wells here have photos from their youth that make them look like little angels, I know I do. It has become very racially charged. The narrative has changed from right or wrong to black and white.
I believe the HOA guy was a loose cannon that should have left his gun at home and pushed the issue til he got more than he bargained for. The TV reports he made 52 calls to 911 in the past year to make it sound like he was a nut. A neighborhood watch captain calling 911 an average of once per week could be more someone doing the job right and letting the police handle things than a hysterical nut. The neighborhood is a gated community w/ poverty right next door.
[popcorn]
-
The shooter has not been charged in the case. This strongly suggests that there's no evidence right now that the shooter is in the wrong. (This could change as the investigation continues.)
Maybe the shooter really is a trigger happy nutball.
Or maybe the deceased isn't the harmless little choirboy he's being portrayed as.
I don't know, and I doubt that anyone reading this thread knows, either.
About all I can be sure of is that since the Feds (in the form of the Obama Justice Department) are now becoming involved is that political considerations are going to muddy the water thoroughly.
-
This happened about 20 miles from where I live. Things are really starting to heat up. Couple things are not right after the fact. The TV keeps showing photos of the deceased that were taken when he was about 14 to make it appear that he was a little kid. I'm sure many of the ne'er-do-wells here have photos from their youth that make them look like little angels, I know I do. It has become very racially charged. The narrative has changed from right or wrong to black and white.
I believe the HOA guy was a loose cannon that should have left his gun at home and pushed the issue til he got more than he bargained for. The TV reports he made 52 calls to 911 in the past year to make it sound like he was a nut. A neighborhood watch captain calling 911 an average of once per week could be more someone doing the job right and letting the police handle things than a hysterical nut. The neighborhood is a gated community w/ poverty right next door.
[popcorn]
Very interesting observations from the ground level. Keep it up!
-
Calling 911 because the kid was walking around in the rain?
If there was a fight, it was probably the result of an attempted and illegal "citizens arrest" - ironically meaning that it was the kid who had a right to stand his ground, not junior batman.
Citizen's arrest isn't "illegal" per se. It may (or may not) be unjustified depending upon the circumstances.
The main fault IMHO here is the neighborhood watch guy was told by police not to do anything, so he (naturally) strikes out and does something. Even this isn't "illegal" -- just really, really BAD judgement.
And as a result, a young man (thug?) is dead and we have the opening salvos of racial tensions flaring and the Fibbies entering the fray. :facepalm:
-
From what I can gather the deceased probably was not a thug but like many kids of the age may have been dressed like one. I say that because early on the photo that was shown of him looked a bit sketchy. You need to search for the original photo to see it now. I hear that the one female witness has changed her story since the event became political and racial. At first her story supported a possibly 'good shoot' and now her story is that the shooter was the aggressor. From what little I've seen of this witness I would judge her second story to be one prompted by her bleeding heart, not necessarily the facts. No matter what, the shooter should have listened to the police and let them take care of it. It sounds like he was bothered by the fact that police have shown up after reported prowlers have left in the past.
[popcorn]
-
Since when is a shady looking guy on the sidewalk a 911 emergency?
The kid undoubtedly had every right to be there. Junior batman likely had no right to challenge him.
This is tragic. The criminal case merits a second look.
-
how about the right to assault someone? shooter was bleeding. and i suspect that happened before the shooting
-
At the moment, I'm leaning towards bad shoot, but only because this guy decided to exit his vehicle and possibly escalate the confrontation. Especially after 911 told him NOT to confront the guy. I would have remained in the vehicle where I could observe the guy from a safe distance and continue to report where I was to the police.
That being said, I don't know all the facts of the story, so I reserve the right to change my opinion... :D
-
DeSelby, a suspect a good number of thugs are caught by people who report "suspicious activity" to the police (and subsequently actually follow the given advice) when the police are actually able to conduct am investigation and find out what's going on. Maybe some "suspicious people" turn out to be honest people who were lost, or whatever.
The kid undoubtedly had every right to be there.
How do you know? Did YOU investigate the crime? Is anyone so sure of the facts they can pass edicts like this? The deceased apparantly did have some record, although --apparantly -- he'd done nothing to justify the shooting at the particular point this tragedy went down.
Had he not been shot, it's impossible to say what would have happened.
All of which sorta makes me think calling the police might have been the last smart thing that vigilante did.
-
whats the law in fla with gated communities? was the kid trespassing?
-
how about the right to assault someone? shooter was bleeding. and i suspect that happened before the shooting
Yeah, and what's the mostblikelynreason for that? Because he was a weirdo chasing kiddies in the neighborhood, or because the kid decided to be aggressive coincidentally at the same moment said weirdo hopped out of the car?
Try coming up with a realistic scenario for a fight that doesn't involve a weirdo menacing neighborhood kids.
Tommy, we know the kid had a right to be there because we have proof that he was walking home from the store.
52 calls to 911 in a year? And his photo looks like a "best of" from the Megan's law website? Yeah, not seeing how this kid wouldn't be terrified of his eventual murderer.
-
It sounds like he was bothered by the fact that police have shown up after reported prowlers have left in the past.
Yup, that's what got me arrested a few yrs back and my ccw suspended for a whole year while it got itself sorted out.
Reno PD has a habit of not even ticketing or running the names of people who run out of taxi's without paying.
After I had caught 3 of them doing that to me and the cops doing squat I was rougher with the fourth.
If the cops have let dBag criminals get away, then I have a lot of sympathy for the guy.
-
And his photo looks like a "best of" from the Megan's law website? Yeah, not seeing how this kid wouldn't be terrified of his eventual murderer.
Racist stereotyping of Latino's is OK, as long as you're a radlib.
-
Current images:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bet.com%2Fcontent%2Fbetcom%2Fnews%2Fnational%2F2012%2F03%2F18%2Fpolice-release-911-tapes-in-the-trayvon-martin-case-fueling-more-outrage%2F_jcr_content%2FfeaturedMedia%2Fnewsitemimage.newsimage.dimg%2F031212-national-trayvon-martin.jpg&hash=0c63bcb4b26b39668050da33f691b9f60e740aaf)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.palmbeachpost.com%2Fmultimedia%2Fdynamic%2F01400%2FTrayvon_Martin_1400613c.jpg&hash=bde7b4a44c57b589b4684e3a1b03ad2cbe2ff1ce)
Earlier Image:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frippdemup.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F03%2Ftrayvon-martin_killed_george-zimmerman-1.jpg&hash=067e6d433f8909693c0088e916bf5e6a0ba9c158)
Image of shooter:
(https://motherjones.com/files/images/erljw.st_.56.preview.jpg)
Might have been able to get to the bottom of it, but now that the federales stuck their dirty thumbs on the scales, I doubt it.
Racist stereotyping of Latino's is OK, as long as you're a radlib.
Black trumps gay & latino. (In general, on the Hierarchy of NAMs.)
-
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-death-friend-phone-teen-death-recounts/t/story?id=15959017#.T2iJNtmDl8E (http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-death-friend-phone-teen-death-recounts/t/story?id=15959017#.T2iJNtmDl8E)
ABC News was there exclusively as the 16-year-old girl told Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump about the last moments of the teenager’s life.
“He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man,” Martin’s friend said. “I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run.”
Eventually he would run, said the girl, thinking that he’d managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin.
“Trayvon said, ‘What, are you following me for,’ and the man said, ‘What are you doing here.’ Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again and he didn’t answer the phone.”
The line went dead. Besides screams heard on 911 calls that night as Martin and Zimmerman scuffled, those were the last words he said.
-
Yeah, and what's the mostblikelynreason for that? Because he was a weirdo chasing kiddies in the neighborhood, or because the kid decided to be aggressive coincidentally at the same moment said weirdo hopped out of the car?
Try coming up with a realistic scenario for a fight that doesn't involve a weirdo menacing neighborhood kids.
Tommy, we know the kid had a right to be there because we have proof that he was walking home from the store.
52 calls to 911 in a year? And his photo looks like a "best of" from the Megan's law website? Yeah, not seeing how this kid wouldn't be terrified of his eventual murderer.
the "kid " was 6'4
-
Seems to me that between neighborhood watch 911-addicted "black kids don't belong around here" nutball and unarmed kid running to store for snack, where kid running to store for snack ends up dead, I wouldn't assume that the unarmed kid running to store for a snack started something. Even if he's six feet tall.
While the motivations of the guy in question are only conjecture at this point... Yea. The situation went sideways.
First rule of being a rentacop or wannabe rentacop. Watch and don't interfere. Call the cops and let them deal with it. Regardless of whether the guy is a nutball, guilty of something or ... not, he's basically ruined for life. Reputation is not "guilty until proven innocent". In this sort of case, he's considered guilty in the overwhelming public eye regardless of circumstances or charges.
Hence, call the police and let them sort it out.
-
the "kid " was 6'4
Yeah, so what? Now we know how the fight started....weirdo chasing the kid, as was the most likely scenario from the start.
Zimmerman should start the prison workout now - he'll need it.
And now some articles are reporting that he regularly preached gun ownership and use to his neighborhood. Great.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/us/911-tapes-released-in-killing-of-florida-teenager.html
a lot will depend on whether it was kid or zimmerman yelling for help and whether zimmerman shot from ground
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/us/911-tapes-released-in-killing-of-florida-teenager.html
a lot will depend on whether it was kid or zimmerman yelling for help and whether zimmerman shot from ground
Ayup.
Shooting dude (not "kid," at 17YO & 6'4") on the ground is gonna need some 'spalinin'. Shooting up from the ground at a dude = "job well done."
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/us/911-tapes-released-in-killing-of-florida-teenager.html
a lot will depend on whether it was kid or zimmerman yelling for help and whether zimmerman shot from ground
Yeah, none of that will matter much if it can be shown that he accosted the boy.
Zimmerman is in a world of pain. And by the looks of it he deserves to be.
Roo ster, if you knocked a guy down for chasing your kids and he shot you, I highly doubt the DA amd grand jury in your neck of the woods would be congratulating him.
The kid (which he was) had a right to defend himself from aggressive, bizarre rentacop behaviour. That's why whether he beat rent-a-cop down isn't the critical issue.
-
That's why whether he beat rent-a-cop down isn't the critical issue.
even for you thats a record
rarely has one person been more wrong
i wonder if they can enchance tapes and prove who cried for help
and i do want to know more about why kid was suspended from school for 10 days. family was a mite vague
tactically there were 2 major errors
1 following and confronting kid
2 kid being too macho to run away he was 70 feet from his dads g/f's place when he died
testosterone does not improve decision making
-
In what state is it legal to attack someone, and then shoot him for using non-deadly force to defend himself from you? Answer - none.
Think about this for a hot sec - if the law gave Zimmerman the right to shoot, how could the kid not have had a right to defend himself under the same law???? We now have proof that he believed Zimmerman was chasing him. He reasonably would have believed Zimmerman was up to no good. And he had no duty to run away.
So whered the kid's right to self defence figure into your analysis? Or did it?
-
De Selby and others, this is all based on conjecture and bias. Wait a while and let the facts come out rather than argue based on pre-conceived bias.
-
can deselby support "zimmerman attacked the kid! zomg"
as far as i know zimmerman was the one who had the wounds on the head
and was the one who called cops. always a good thing in the whos the bad guy after action matrix
-
As stated earlier we all know Zimmerman did wrong to exit his vehicle and chase the deceased, doubly wrong since the 911 dispatcher told him not to. What bothers me is the attempt at the press to color the issue by posting so many pictures of the deceased that are obviously dated ...
:police:
-
Think about this for a hot sec - if the law gave Zimmerman the right to shoot, how could the kid not have had a right to defend himself under the same law???? We now have proof that he believed Zimmerman was chasing him. He reasonably would have believed Zimmerman was up to no good. And he had no duty to run away.
What part of being followed constitutes threat of "Imminent use of force"? Zimmerman could have followed him down street asking him any question he wanted without triggering the "kid's" right to self defense. Asking what you're doing, even in an ahole-y fashion isn't neccessarilly a threat.
whats the law in fla with gated communities? was the kid trespassing?
Depends, but probably. Most gated communities around here are owned by the HOA's and are "private" property. The HOA's have pushed trespassing charges on folks they don't want. Some aren't, depending on how the subdivision was originally drawn up. Was he cutting through or visiting a resident? That also makes a difference on the trespassing.
What is really going to make the difference is the "kid's" response when Zimmerman got out of the car and asked what he was doing. Or, more likely, whether the investigators/jury belive Zimmerman's account of that response. Following him and asking what he was doing in the neighborhood was probably not the best judgement call, but it's not illegal. Basiclly, who got physical first? And since there's only one story, is that story credible. At least one law enforcment agency seems to think it is.
-
The neighborhood watch group here have explicit instructions to observe and report only.
No accosting, interrogating, following, brandishing, etc., and for good reason.
I am curious if this FL community is the same - I'll bet that it is.
I fear with this case that Zimmerman is going to be a terrible example of what not to do.
I would hope that a challenge to the stand your ground law would be more positive for the one standing their ground.
If Zimmerman turns to be a hair-trigger hate-mongering aggressive *expletive deleted*bag, then the law could be struck down, or lose it's teeth, which would be bad for the rest of us good folks.
de selby-
It is way too early in the process to pass judgement.
There is no need for a lynch mob just yet.
-
de selby-
It is way too early in the process to pass judgement.
There is no need for a lynch mob just yet.
I fear a lynch mob is exactly what the newspapers want. Folks that KNOW he's guilty regardless of the facts of the case. Lot's of froth and demands for JUSTICE, to hell with the law. That's what these same papers did with Casey Anthony.
-
I fear a lynch mob is exactly what the newspapers want. Folks that KNOW he's guilty regardless of the facts of the case. Lot's of froth and demands for JUSTICE, to hell with the law.
Who cares about the law when you are the Fifth Column Fourth Estate.
-
In what state is it legal to attack someone, and then shoot him for using non-deadly force to defend himself from you? Answer - none.
Just to answer this particular statement. You are wrong. In Texas, deadly force is justified in under threat against life or serious bodily injury. Someone beating on you can cause serious bodily injury and that has been supported by court cases. I am pretty sure Texas isn't the only state with that legal definition for justified use of deadly force.
However, if the "victim" started the whole mess, that muddies the waters on trying to claim self defense. I sat as a juror on a case where a guy attempted to claim self defense, but it came out that he had just robbed the guy so self defense wasn't really valid.
-
As stated earlier we all know Zimmerman did wrong to exit his vehicle and chase the deceased, doubly wrong since the 911 dispatcher told him not to. What bothers me is the attempt at the press to color the issue by posting so many pictures of the deceased that are obviously dated ...
:police:
Well that's simple. Race riots sell newspapers.
Look at Rodney King. The beating he got was wrong, no matter how you cut it, but an unedited verison of the tape that showed him resisting and grappling with the police before hand would have had a higer "SSDD" factor for everyone watching. Shrug... LA Burned, Reginald Denney took cinder blocks to the head, Korean shopkeeps were armed with Mini-14's and AR's on the rooftops... but the ratings were awesome! =|
As the dead-tree editions circulation figures collectively circle the drains, and come nearer to the bitter end every year, and probably for awhile after as the revenue streams and staffing models for the electronic editions stabilize, I fully suspect this will get worse before it gets better.
Add to that the economy is down. We've got a likely one-term black POTUS, and weather wise, summer seems to have started two months early across much of the U.S.... I suspect the summer of 2012 will look a lot more like a banner year in the 1960's for news and unrest than it will the boring and sedate "history has ended" 1990's.
-
However, if the "victim" started the whole mess, that muddies the waters on trying to claim self defense. I sat as a juror on a case where a guy attempted to claim self defense, but it came out that he had just robbed the guy so self defense wasn't really valid.
This is key. I am aware of case law and jury instructions in several states providing that if you are the aggressor, you are not entitled to a presumption nor a jury instruction for self-defense. Even if it all goes to crap and you end up having to kill someone to prevent your own death or severe bodily injury. The reasoning is that you started it, and you must bear the consequences of the actions thereto.
-
In Zimmerman's shoes, I would have observed at a distance and waited on the cops.
Knowing myself, though, and being in the kid's shoes, it would have been like this:
"Hey, were are you going?"
None of your business.
"Hey, where have you been?"
None of your business.
"Hey, what have you been doing?"
None of your business. Get out of my face.
"Hey, come here!"
*expletive deleted*ck you.
-
Tommy, we know the kid had a right to be there because we have proof that he was walking home from the store.
One report I heard stated that Zimmerman had a bloody injury. Could it be .... just maybe ..... this "kid" was doing more than just "walking home?" ;)
-
Just to answer this particular statement. You are wrong. In Texas, deadly force is justified in under threat against life or serious bodily injury. Someone beating on you can cause serious bodily injury and that has been supported by court cases. I am pretty sure Texas isn't the only state with that legal definition for justified use of deadly force.
However, if the "victim" started the whole mess, that muddies the waters on trying to claim self defense. I sat as a juror on a case where a guy attempted to claim self defense, but it came out that he had just robbed the guy so self defense wasn't really valid.
You declared I was wrong, then went on to repeat what you quoted from me - you can't attack people and then claim self defense when they respond with force.
The facts we do have make it almost inescapably bad for Zimmerman. How on earth would this kid have ended up punching him, while being the aggressor? That's the relevant fact - unless young trayvon was the aggressor, it was actually his right to repel Zimmerman by force under the castle doctrine laws in Florida.
Zimmerman has no right of self defense against another's lawful use of force.
Now, based on the phone calls from both, what are the odds that trayvon did something which would make him legally the aggressor?
I'd say pretty low, which is why if I were zimmermans attorney, I'd recommend he invest in a gym membership now while he has time.
-
However, if the "victim" started the whole mess, that muddies the waters on trying to claim self defense.
This part seems pretty clear - Zimmerman started the whole mess. He is very clearly the one who followed the kid and engaged him. According to everyone, including Zimmerman, the kid was trying to get away from him (at least to start with)
Now, based on the phone calls from both, what are the odds that trayvon did something which would make him legally the aggressor?
Well it's possible that when Zimmerman chased the kid down and finally caught up to him that he politely asked him his name and residence and offered him a ride home but the kid flew off the handle and tried to claw his eyes out. Doesn't seem likely in the least but it is possible and in that case Zimmerman would be justified.
-
Ditto head, the problem for zimmermans defence is that there's a witness to the moment of their encounter. The boy was on the phone to his girlfriend the moment Zimmerman caught up to him.
The kids last recorded words? "why are you following me!"
-
The kids last recorded words? "why are you following me!"
And do you have some evidence that the rest of that conversation wasn't something like this:
"I'm part of the neighborhood watch, and I'm following you because we get a lot of prowlers around here. I called the cops already."
"What?!? *expletive deleted*ck you cracker!! call the cops on me? I'll *expletive deleted*ing kill you!!"
[punch]
[bang].
Because I'll bet even money that's roughly what Zimmerman's lawyer is going to say happened
-
And do you have some evidence that the rest of that conversation wasn't something like this:
Because I'll bet even money that's roughly what Zimmerman's lawyer is going to say happened
How believable is that going to be, when Zimmerman either gets on the stand to testify or doesnt't? It's lose lose - no jury is going to buy it given the tapes and his history.
I'm predicting now that, if the grand jury indicts, he is toast
-
Because I'll bet even money that's roughly what Zimmerman's lawyer is going to say happened
According to this (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/19/2703029/us-department-of-justice-fbi-and.html#disqus_thread%23storylink=cpy) Zimmerman claims he was attacked from behind, never mentioned the "conversation." Although that's second (third?) hand from the police.
Zimmerman said he had stepped out of his truck to check the name of the street he was on when Trayvon attacked him from behind as he walked back to his truck, police said.
Doesn't make much sense that the person he was chasing attacked him from behind.
-
According to this (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/19/2703029/us-department-of-justice-fbi-and.html#disqus_thread%23storylink=cpy) Zimmerman claims he was attacked from behind, never mentioned the "conversation." Although that's second (third?) hand from the police.
Doesn't make much sense that the person he was chasing attacked him from behind.
Yeah, except that we know from zimmermans calls and from the call the victim was on that this isn't the case. He was looking right at the kid when he got out of the car.
And, we know approximately what the kid was thinking in his own words - having a weirdo follow you slowly and then get out of the car to confront you should give rise to a self defence claim. He would have been perfectly justified in belieiving zimmerman was a threat to him and responding accordingly.
-
Could go either way from what I've read.
A wound to the back of Zimmermans head and the grass stains all support his contention he was jumped from behind.
The witnesses are all assuming the screams were from the young man who ended up dead.
The cops are playing their cards close, eventually more info will be forthcoming.
-
One report I heard stated that Zimmerman had a bloody injury. Could it be .... just maybe ..... this "kid" was doing more than just "walking home?" ;)
Maybe, just maybe, the wound was self-inflicted.....
-
You declared I was wrong, then went on to repeat what you quoted from me - you can't attack people and then claim self defense when they respond with force.
The facts we do have make it almost inescapably bad for Zimmerman. How on earth would this kid have ended up punching him, while being the aggressor? That's the relevant fact - unless young trayvon was the aggressor, it was actually his right to repel Zimmerman by force under the castle doctrine laws in Florida.
Zimmerman has no right of self defense against another's lawful use of force.
Now, based on the phone calls from both, what are the odds that trayvon did something which would make him legally the aggressor?
I'd say pretty low, which is why if I were zimmermans attorney, I'd recommend he invest in a gym membership now while he has time.
If you were his attorney, you should be fired for making prejudicial statements without knowing all of the facts.
-
Maybe, just maybe, the wound was self-inflicted.....
At the very least the whole episode was self inflicted.
If the cops have an iced tea bottle with blood matching Zimmerman or some such thing, maybe skinned knuckles and traces of Zimmermans blood then one could understand why he hasn't been charged.
Right now for better or worse I'm giving the cops the benefit of the doubt NOT Zimmerman.
-
[popcorn]
-
I may be cynical but I totally discount the girlfriend's testimony about the last part of her phone conversation w/ the deceased. It appears she waited 2-3 weeks to come forward with testimony that is very damning to the shooter. Doesn't pass the smell test. Right or wrong I don't think Zimmerman has a chance of not doing time in the current racially charged political environment. He could be Mother Teresa and Eric Holder's justice department would find him in the wrong.
[popcorn]
-
One report I heard stated that Zimmerman had a bloody injury. Could it be .... just maybe ..... this "kid" was doing more than just "walking home?"
Maybe, just maybe, the wound was self-inflicted.....
At this point, given the information available (or atleast what purports to be "information") this is one possibility.
This is turning into a really nasty situation..... I think Zimmerman is in for a pasting in court, rightly or wrongly.
-
From De Selby's commentary, we glean certain facts about the gated communities of Australia.
1. In Australia's gated communities, a kid walking down the sidewalk is obviously an innocent with a right to be there.
2. In Australia's gated communities, a member of the neighborhood watch driving down the street is obviously a weirdo following kids around.
3. In Australia's gated communities, a 17-year-old in excess of six feet in height is obviously a kid, even when wearing a hood. In the dark.
Is it the same in Florida? We shall see.
-
Yeah, fistful, you're operating as if we have no facts about what was happening, when we do - we know for a fact the kid (described as a teenager by the suspect on his 911 call, FYI) had a right to be there, we have the recorded words of the suspect following him, we have 50 or so previous 911 calls suggesting that Zimmerman is a weirdo, and we have testimony from someone who was on the phone with the "late teens" (quoting Zimmerman) victim at the time he was killed.
I've spent much more time in America than Australia, but I've been here long enough to know that you'd be laughed out of the pub for even calling 911 under the circumstances. Weirdo is a reasonable conclusion to draw no matter which side of the pacific you're on.
-
Maybe, just maybe, the wound was self-inflicted.....
At this point, given the information available (or atleast what purports to be "information") this is one possibility.
This is turning into a really nasty situation..... I think Zimmerman is in for a pasting in court, rightly or wrongly.
Zimmerman is completely toast in court.
-
Can the Feds charge him while the local or state declines?
-
Can the Feds charge him while the local or state declines?
The feds can charge him even if the locals convict him. They just have to find jurisdiction to do it, which would be tough without further evidence.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/20/10780286-florida-stand-your-ground-law-could-complicate-trayvon-martin-teen-shooting-case (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/20/10780286-florida-stand-your-ground-law-could-complicate-trayvon-martin-teen-shooting-case)
Looks like some of the local defence attorneys are seeing the same problems I am: Richard Hornsby, an Orlando-based criminal defense attorney, says he thinks the grand jury is likely to indict Zimmerman for manslaughter, a second-degree felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison. Less likely is a more serious charge of second-degree murder, a crime that implies intent and that is punishable by up to life in prison, he said.
“This case isn’t even a close call to me. This is a case of a guy trying to be a vigilante,” Hornsby said. “It wasn’t like he was trying to avoid trouble. He brought a firearm to a fistfight.”
-
I suspect that even if this was a good shoot the shooter is going down in the name of racial harmony.
-
Looks like some of the local defence attorneys are seeing the same problems I am:
I don't care what a local defense attorney thinks.
He has no more information than the rest of us.
He is simply looking for free advertising for his business.
Grasp at straws much?
-
I don't care what a local defense attorney thinks.
He has no more information than the rest of us.
He is simply looking for free advertising for his business.
Grasp at straws much?
??? How does saying 'This guy is toast, it's an easy case for the prosecution' advertise a defence lawyer's business?
From my lawyering eyes, this guy is in huge trouble if all you consider are direct quotes and voice recordings. A little more investigating (i.e., what he said to his friends, identifying who was crying for help on the tape, clarifying whether he actually said "f*****g c***ns" as cleaned up audio on the web suggests during the assault...), and it's time to work out a plea.
This is my point - the information we have, excluding summaries of the rentacops history, focusing only on his own recorded words and direct quotes from witnesses (some recorded on 911 tapes) makes the case, to quote at least one FL licensed attorney, "not even close."
-
At the very least the whole episode was self inflicted.
If the cops have an iced tea bottle with blood matching Zimmerman or some such thing, maybe skinned knuckles and traces of Zimmermans blood then one could understand why he hasn't been charged.
Right now for better or worse I'm giving the cops the benefit of the doubt NOT Zimmerman.
THe comments I hear this morning mention that they may just be waiting to be sure they have a solid case before proceeding with charges. I heard they have a few different interviews with the guy so it sounds like he is saying the right things to justify himself and they need to gather other evidence if they want to convict him.
-
The information we do have is that Zimmerman chased and then confronted the kid, in a situation where as far as we can tell the kid had the legal right to be there.
From there, things went sideways.
Zimmerman put himself in the situation. Even if in the end, the homocide was justifiable, he put himself in that situation.
I rarely side with DS. But comeon. From the information that is out there, this smells like a turd.
-
This thread should be closed for the time being. There is more heat than light. When ALL the facts are known, a discussion might be worthwhile. At the moment, imho, it isn't.
-
Zimmerman put himself in the situation. Even if in the end, the homocide was justifiable, he put himself in that situation.
This is pretty much my thoughts on the matter.
IF Zimmerman's story is 100% true, it is still true that he sought out a confrontation, and had a part in escalating it. While he may be completely in the clear legally, he handled it very poorly.
-
??? How does saying 'This guy is toast, it's an easy case for the prosecution' advertise a defence lawyer's business?
Because he is rendering an uneducated opinion to the press without all of the facts.
-
Well its obvious the kid attacked a guy who had 100lbs on! Kids in hoodies are all obviously criminals and guys with guns never start confrontations. They are always polite and soft spoken.
I mean come on!
And the way the police handled the investigation, Top notch!
They sent out a narcotics detective instead of a homicide detective. They never made an effort to contact the person (his girlfriend) Trayvon was on the phone with at the time of the confrontation. They didn't run any drug or alcohol test on Zimmerman as is standard procedure in death investigations (according to the news), but they did drug test the dead kid! Oh they didn't find anything but they drug tested the dead kid! Police officer corrects a witness after they claim to have heard Trayvon scream for help, silly witness it was Zimmerman; criminals don't scream for help.
That one 911 call where someone is screaming "Help" like their being bloody murdered for 40 seconds before the shot was obviously Zimmerman, no sense in actually attempting to figure it out even though Trayvon's mother claims it's him screaming for help. Shes obviously a liar.
-
Yeah, fistful, you're operating as if we have no facts about what was happening, when we do - we know for a fact the kid (described as a teenager by the suspect on his 911 call, FYI) had a right to be there, we have the recorded words of the suspect following him, we have 50 or so previous 911 calls suggesting that Zimmerman is a weirdo, and we have testimony from someone who was on the phone with the "late teens" (quoting Zimmerman) victim at the time he was killed.
I've spent much more time in America than Australia, but I've been here long enough to know that you'd be laughed out of the pub for even calling 911 under the circumstances. Weirdo is a reasonable conclusion to draw no matter which side of the pacific you're on.
DeSelby, we have no facts. We have only what is reported in the media. Last week the news reported Zimmerman was a "right wing fanatic." Those reports disappeared fairly quickly.
Zimmerman hasn't been tried and convicted yet.
While I would agree that Zimmerman showed a profound lack of good judgement (based on MEDIA REPORTS) I am holding off "convicting" him by about the breadth of a gnat's hair.
Having a "right to be there" is immaterial to the matter. It does not prove that the deceased was not doing anything else that was wrong. We just don't have any evidence (good evidence, atleast) that he WAS doing anything wrong.
-
I hate siding with De Selby, but come on... The man (teen/kid/whatever you want to call it) was on a sidwalk, minding his own business, and got accosted by someone with a pretty obvious wannabe renta cop attitude.
So many are accusing the media of kneejerk reactions, while at the same time making equally baseless and kneejerk reactions. "ZOMG black guy got shot, he must be a thug and the innocent gun owner is getting railroaded!!!!!eleventyone!!!"
I know media reports are biased and horridly inaccurate, but guees what? Fanciful scenarios made up by guys on gun boards trying desperately to find a way to justify the actions of the shooter aren't really any more credible.
-
DeSelby, we have no facts. We have only what is reported in the media. Last week the news reported Zimmerman was a "right wing fanatic." Those reports disappeared fairly quickly.
Ding, ding, ding!!!!!! Correctomundo!
-
Well its obvious the kid attacked a guy who had 100lbs on! Kids in hoodies are all obviously criminals and guys with guns never start confrontations. They are always polite and soft spoken.
I mean come on!
And the way the police handled the investigation, Top notch!
They sent out a narcotics detective instead of a homicide detective. They never made an effort to contact the person (his girlfriend) Trayvon was on the phone with at the time of the confrontation. They didn't run any drug or alcohol test on Zimmerman as is standard procedure in death investigations (according to the news), but they did drug test the dead kid! Oh they didn't find anything but they drug tested the dead kid! Police officer corrects a witness after they claim to have heard Trayvon scream for help, silly witness it was Zimmerman; criminals don't scream for help.
That one 911 call where someone is screaming "Help" like their being bloody murdered for 40 seconds before the shot was obviously Zimmerman, no sense in actually attempting to figure it out even though Trayvon's mother claims it's him screaming for help. Shes obviously a liar.
You have documentation for this? And, if sending a narcotics officer is true, I'm willing to bet he was the first one on scene because he had already been dispatched to deal with a "suspicious person". Of course, it's so much easier to just claim that the cops were biased because the deceased was hispanic. Oh, wait, no the shooter was hispanic, the deceased was black. Sorry, I forgot the hierarchy of aggreived minorities.
My opinion is that Zimmerman made a mistake getting out of his car. (Apparently whether he confronted the deceased is not confirmed.) He should not have done so and that undoubtedly led to the death of Martin. (Also, I note you are using the deceased's first name while using the last name of the shooter. Interesting.)
All we have, confirmed, is that the shooter got out of the car, there was an altercation, and the deceased was shot.
I believe there is a 911 tape of the entire event. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) If that is that case, all we have to do is wait for the tapes.
As Mr. Zimmerman has not yet been arrested, I am willing to give some credence that there is evidence he acted in self-defense even though he stupidly placed himself in the position to necessitate it.
I don't understand the righteous indignation going on here- am I mistaken that there is a 911 recording? Otherwise, why get so angry when the entire incident is at least recorded on audio?
-
Zimmerman is completely toast in court.
Very much so.
Trust me I am not wasting grief on Zimmerman. At the very least he showed remarkably poor judgement.
One consistent fact reported in every story is that he left his car and followed the deceased against advice given him by the 911 operator. That advice may not carry the weight of law but, really, no one can think Zimmerman made a smart decision and whatever happened, right or wrong, followed as a result of this one really bad decision.
-
Joe Horn, Part II ???
-
You have documentation for this? And, if sending a narcotics officer is true, I'm willing to bet he was the first one on scene because he had already been dispatched to deal with a "suspicious person". Of course, it's so much easier to just claim that the cops were biased because the deceased was hispanic. Oh, wait, no the shooter was hispanic, the deceased was black. Sorry, I forgot the hierarchy of aggreived minorities.
I can't find the article including the details about the detective now, maybe I can find it when I go home. I didn't say the police where bias, I just pointed out the many ways in which they screwed up their initial investigation. But if you want to bring race into this there's this.
The officer in charge of the scene of Trayvon’s shooting was involved in another case that drew attention in 2010, in which a police lieutenant’s son was videotaped attacking a black homeless man. The same officer who has not arrested Zimmerman failed initially to arrest the police lieutenant’s son in the earlier case. The attacker was later arrested when local channel WFTV broke the news of the incident.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/mar2012/mart-m21.shtml
I mean if the officer was racist he obviously would hate all minorities equally its not like racism could be illogical.
I believe there is a 911 tape of the entire event. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) If that is that case, all we have to do is wait for the tapes.
The tapes already out. In one of the multiple 911 calls you can hear someone screaming help for 40 seconds before the shot. Zimmerman claims it him, Trayvons parents identified it as Trayvon, at least one witness said it was Trayvon. Considering its been what three weeks since the shooting you'd think the police would seriously try to figure out who's voice it was on the tape. If it was Zimmermans well that backs up him story, but if it was Trayvon, well it may just be the evidence we need to have Zimmerman arrested.
It seems to plenty of people online are mad because of the apparent lack of investigation done by Florida police. Why would they not test the shooter for drugs and alcohol, but make sure to test the deceased? Why not call Trayvon's girl friend when phone records obtained by ABC show they where on the phone at the time of the confrontation. Seriously ABC can do a better investigation that FL police, three weeks after the fact in a homicide investigation? That's pathetic.
-
I can't find the article including the details about the detective now, maybe I can find it when I go home. I didn't say the police where bias, I just pointed out the many ways in which they screwed up their initial investigation. But if you want to bring race into this there's this.
I mean if the officer was racist he obviously would hate all minorities equally its not like racism could be illogical.
The tapes already out. In one of the multiple 911 calls you can hear someone screaming help for 40 seconds before the shot. Zimmerman claims it him, Trayvons parents identified it as Trayvon, at least one witness said it was Trayvon. Considering its been what three weeks since the shooting you'd think the police would seriously try to figure out who's voice it was on the tape. If it was Zimmermans well that backs up him story, but if it was Trayvon, well it may just be the evidence we need to have Zimmerman arrested.
It seems to plenty of people online are mad because of the apparent lack of investigation done by Florida police. Why would they not test the shooter for drugs and alcohol, but make sure to test the deceased? Why not call Trayvon's girl friend when phone records obtained by ABC show they where on the phone at the time of the confrontation. Seriously ABC can do a better investigation that FL police, three weeks after the fact in a homicide investigation? That's pathetic.
Rule number one: Don't bust the Lt's son.
Maybe the media can do a better investigation, but the police have o do one that can stand up in Court.
What probable cause can the PD cite for testing the shooter for drugs?
What eye witnesses are there? Are they all "I heard" witnesses? like I was in my bedroom watching TV and I heard yelling and a gunshot?
-
Maybe the media can do a better investigation, but the police have o do one that can stand up in Court.
The question is, Have they been investigating? Why did no one from FL call the girl friend or reach out to her in the three weeks since the shooting. Don't you think that's a bit long in a homicide investigation? Doesn't seem like FL is doing much.
What probable cause can the PD cite for testing the shooter for drugs?
Isn't that standard in a shooting investigation? I honestly don't know but from what I read in the news reports it is; but wasn't done in this case. Further more why drug test the victim? What reason did they have for that?
What eye witnesses are there? Are they all "I heard" witnesses? like I was in my bedroom watching TV and I heard yelling and a gunshot?
Did I say eye witness? No I said witness if there's another word for an "I heard" witness, please let me know.
-
Did I say eye witness? No I said witness if there's another word for an "I heard" witness, please let me know.
Myself, I would call them "Not a Witness", but that is just me. Saying you heard something, but didn't see it doesn't mean much and wouldn't mean a great deal to me as a juror.
-
how do they compel one to be drug tested? unless of course one is a cop or some other profession where its mandated.
i do wonder if he had "a couple beers"
manys the time i've heard how "a couple beers" doesn't make me impaired
how much impairment does it take to make a bad call like this?
so far all we have is hearsay from the girl until she is deposed
-
now this is a witness
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation#ixzz1pQ0Xgz9R
A man who witnessed part of the altercation contacted authorities.
"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.
John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.
"And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."
Read more: http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation#ixzz1pmKFR5mk
-
Yeah, fistful, you're operating as if we have no facts about what was happening, when we do...
Nope. I was talking about how Zimmerman and Martin saw each other at the time, in response to your own assessment of same.
-
Nope. I was talking about how Zimmerman and Martin saw each other at the time, in response to your own assessment of same.
Yeah, we have a recording of zimmermans own words on that subject, and a first hand account of trayvon's.
There is evidence in public folks. Ignore the media and listen to the tapes.
-
Yeah, we have a recording of zimmermans own words on that subject, and a first hand account of trayvon's.
There is evidence in public folks. Ignore the media and listen to the tapes.
Sorry, scooter, but the evidence in public is from the media.
All of the recordings stop prior to the alleged attack from what I have seen.
There are no recordings from the kid, only the GF's depiction of their conversation.
Like CSD said, her comments mean nothing until she speaks under oath.
I would still question her motives, as she is 1) young and 2) will bend to the family's wishes.
Denial is a dangerous disease.
-
Sorry, scooter, but the evidence in public is from the media.
All of the recordings stop prior to the alleged attack from what I have seen.
There are no recordings from the kid, only the GF's depiction of their conversation.
Like CSD said, her comments mean nothing until she speaks under oath.
I would still question her motives, as she is 1) young and 2) will bend to the family's wishes.
Denial is a dangerous disease.
You realize that the gunshot itself is recorded on the 911 tapes, right?
Question away at her motives - its still evidence, and not media hype, just like the actual 911 calls.
It's a massive stretch to call tape recordings of witnesses and participants at the moment of the event "media hype."
-
now this is a witness
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation#ixzz1pQ0Xgz9R
A man who witnessed part of the altercation contacted authorities.
"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.
John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.
"And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."
Read more: http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation#ixzz1pmKFR5mk
I suspect this fellow might be why Zimmerman has yet to be arrested, assuming the cops spoke to him that night.
-
What I don't get about this is, being a pro self defence community, why is no one talking about trayvon's right to self defence?
That witness might well have have seen trayvon trying to subdue an armed and mentally disturbed attacker. Given the tapes, I think it's likely that trayvon had a legal right to defend himself by force from this oddly behaving attacker.
Or does only the gun holding party get considered a candidate for self defence?
-
What I don't get about this is, being a pro self defence community, why is no one talking about trayvon's right to self defence?
That witness might well have have seen trayvon trying to subdue an armed and mentally disturbed attacker. Given the tapes, I think it's likely that trayvon had a legal right to defend himself by force from this oddly behaving attacker.
Or does only the gun holding party get considered a candidate for self defence?
Well, shootee was trespassing for sure when he was shot. Before, when he was walking on the sidewalk, he might have been trespassing on HOA property. Not sure, dependson the HOA agreement & FL law. But, when he took off between the town homes, he definitely was trespassing.
Trespass doesn't win much sympathy from me. We have discussed how Zimmerman did some wrong/unwise things, but Martin most definitely screwed the pooch when he jogged off between the town homes away from the street and committed the crime of trespass.
When one commits a crime like trespassing on someone else's property, their using force to resist being apprehended or ejected is usually not looked on as self defense.
[Feel free to toss in the usual disclaimers about not having all the facts, blah blah blah.]
-
Roo, you've just proven jamis's point - bending over way, way down backwards there to justify this. To the point that you've made a completely illogical claim - if trayvon was trespassing, so was Zimmerman when he followed him onto the neighbour's yard. So why again does that mean no sympathy for the boy?
Oh that's right, because he wears a hood in photos!
This thread is some of the strongest ammo for anti-gunners Ive ever seen.
-
Roo, you've just proven jamis's point - bending over way, way down backwards there to justify this. To the point that you've made a completely illogical claim - if trayvon was trespassing, so was Zimmerman when he followed him onto the neighbour's yard. So why again does that mean no sympathy for the boy?
Oh that's right, because he wears a hood in photos!
This thread is some of the strongest ammo for anti-gunners Ive ever seen.
Uh, not so fast. Senor Assumption.
We have a neighborhood watch here, too, and we have given them permission to tread all the common areas. Areas where, were they non-resident, non-neighborhood watch, they would be trespassing.
(Do recall that this happened in the confines of an HOA with an official neighborhood watch program. )
At church, we have:
1. An agreement with a security company to have our grounds patrolled by an armed guard. He can roam all our grounds and not be trespassing in the performance of his duties.
2. Also, employees of the church, elders, and members of the board of trustees have permission to walk the grounds 24/7 and roust trespassers. Matter of fact, we are encouraged to do so. It was one of the ways I determined the throughput of trespassers on the property during the evenings. When I told a group of tattooed and pierced youths to leave the property, I was good-to-go and not trespassing. When the folks renting our athletic fields told the group of young black thugs to leave, they were good-to-go, too.
3. An agreement with the city police that they do not need probable cause to enter our grounds to roust any folk they deem suspicious. (Not a step taken lightly, believe you me. )
=====================
So, we know for certain Martin was trespassing, but do not know if Zimmerman was trespassing. Maybe, maybe not. Recall my disclaimer? Perhaps you ought to read it and not make foolish assumptions.
-
Did I say eye witness? No I said witness if there's another word for an "I heard" witness, please let me know.
Don't taze me bro! :angel:
I'm just asking questions!
-
It seems like the radlibs are eager to turn this into some kind of cause with even less info then we have here.
Protest in the SF Bay Area & NYC.
I hope nothing happens to stand your ground - its an awesome law.
-
What I don't get about this is, being a pro self defence community, why is no one talking about trayvon's right to self defence?
Because no one is trying to lynch Trayvon.
Most of us here are just saying we need more facts. One of two basic scenario's happened:
1. Zimmerman grabbed, hit, shoved, or otherwise started the scuffle, in which case he was the aggressor, and it's a bad shoot.
or
2. Trayvon responded to a verbal encounter ("what are you doing here") with force and started the fight that ended up with him shot.
That distinction is what we don't know. Up until that point everything was either legal, or not justification for use of force. Zimmerman's following of, and stopping to verbally challenge Trayvon isn't justification for Trayvon to use force in self defense.* Until we know who initiated the physical part of the confrontation we don't know who was defending themselves.
*ETA for clarity: Trayvon's tresspassing is ALSO not justification for use of force under FL law. That's why the unkown distinction is so important in this case. Whoever escalated to physical force is aggressor, leaving the self defense justification to the other.
-
You realize that the gunshot itself is recorded on the 911 tapes, right?
Question away at her motives - its still evidence, and not media hype, just like the actual 911 calls.
It's a massive stretch to call tape recordings of witnesses and participants at the moment of the event "media hype."
Do you read before typing? I think not.
There are no witness recordings, especially the GF.
Her comments are what she thinks they said while speaking, and is not recorded.
I enjoy a good engagement with most folks, but you pick and choose what you believe to be true, and it destroys your creditability.
-
Here are some interesting comments from the Republican author of the FL Stand Your Ground Law:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57401619-504083/author-of-stand-your-ground-law-george-zimmerman-should-probably-be-arrested-for-killing-trayvon-martin/
CBS/AP) SANFORD, Fla. - The author of Florida's controversial "stand your ground" self-defense law say George Zimmerman should probably be arrested for shooting Trayvon Martin, reports the Miami Herald.
"He has no protection under my law," former Sen. Durell Peaden told the newspaper.
-
Trespass doesn't win much sympathy from me. We have discussed how Zimmerman did some wrong/unwise things, but Martin most definitely screwed the pooch when he jogged off between the town homes away from the street and committed the crime of trespass.
When one commits a crime like trespassing on someone else's property, their using force to resist being apprehended or ejected is usually not looked on as self defense.
However, under the doctrine of competing harms, (and common sense) if the shootee reasonably thought that he was in danger from an unstable and belligerent individual, it is completely reasonable for someone to try to get away by whatever route necessary. Did Zimmerman even identify himself as neighborhood watch?
It seems like the radlibs are eager to turn this into some kind of cause with even less info then we have here.
Protest in the SF Bay Area & NYC.
I hope nothing happens to stand your ground - its an awesome law.
It is unfortunate that this is so politiized. The way the left is trying to politicize it automatically encourages a knee-jerk reaction for people to jump to Zimmerman's defense, thereby turning it into another culture war battle.
I honestly don't think that this case will harm "stand your ground laws." Zimmerman's actions went far beyond "standing your ground." Getting out of the safety of your car to chase someone down doesn't really fit in to the kind of behavior that is intended to be protected by "stand your ground" laws.
With the information so far, Zimmerman also doesn't appear to have much of a leg to stand on under "fleeing felon" rules, as he couldn't articulate to the 911 operator what the kid was up to. "Not looking right" isn't grounds to chase someone down.
I think it is probably the case Zimmerman had not clearly thought our how he was going to deal with approaching suspicious characters in his role as a neighborhood watch member. What did he think would happen if he was going to run after someone under these circumstances? What was he going to accomplish after he had already gotten the kid to start leaving the area? His poor choices ultimately ended with someone getting shot. Regardless of the legal consequences , he is going to have live with that.
-
Roo, you've just proven jamis's point - bending over way, way down backwards there to justify this. To the point that you've made a completely illogical claim - if trayvon was trespassing, so was Zimmerman when he followed him onto the neighbour's yard. So why again does that mean no sympathy for the boy?
Oh that's right, because he wears a hood in photos!
This thread is some of the strongest ammo for anti-gunners Ive ever seen.
Zimmerman is at a minimum, a complete idiot. Probably a fool as well.
As for Trayvon, honestly have no idea. Yes, if Zimmerman hit him first, he absolutely deserves every right to defend himself and hopefully Zimmerman goes to jail for a long time. It won't bring him back, but it'd be some level of justice. If he hit Zimmerman first, even in socially justified manner (ie saying something not polite or whatnot), he initiated the escalation of force and that matters legally. Hitting someone doesn't necessarily justify use of lethal force. If I had no arms and started kicking you in the knees, you'd probably go to jail even under Castle Doctrine if you killed me with a firearm.
Personally, if I was one of the cops, even if it wasn't murder/manslaughter, I'd try hit the guy for at least something minor to take the guy's concealed permit. Zimmerman may or may not be guilty of murder, that is up to the legal system to decide. But he sure as hell used bad judgment that led to a fatal shooting that EASILY COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED. I am fairly sure Florida law likely has a provision to revoke a permit if someone is a bloody idiot. (Yes, yes, I know it'd be written more formally.)
No, this thread does NOT provide some of the strongest ammo to anti-gunners. "Those evil gun-lunatics at APS are hesitant to lynch an idiot." That is the only ammo provided. No one is questioning the fact that Zimmerman probably used bad judgment. No one is questioning that Zimmerman should have avoided escalating the situation. No one is questioning that it may be a murky shooting. Folks ARE questioning the desire to lynch the guy without access to all of the facts. Yes, SOME evidence is public knowledge. But pretty friggin far from all of them.
-
Anyone seen whether Zimmerman received medical treatment or any mention of how seriously he was hurt? Broken nose? Stitches? Mild Head Trauma etc.?
I can't help but speculating at this point that a couple of wannabe tough guys ran into each other and one of them had a gun. If that is the case then at the minimum Zimmerman was the initiator of the interaction. The most important question, as mentioned above, who initiated physical contact?
-
Anyone seen whether Zimmerman received medical treatment or any mention of how seriously he was hurt? Broken nose? Stitches? Mild Head Trauma etc.?
I can't help but speculating at this point that a couple of wannabe tough guys ran into each other and one of them had a gun. If that is the case then at the minimum Zimmerman was the initiator of the interaction. The most important question, as mentioned above, who initiated physical contact?
The articles I have read reported a broken nose and 13 stitches in the back of his head. (Again, take with a grain of salt as there has been so much speculation reported as fact.)
-
Also, I will again note that we don't know who initiated the interaction.
Following someone is not illegal (a pattern of doing so becomes stalking, though.) It is cause to raise your awareness, but unless the follower initiates some kind of contact, the proper response to someone following you is not physical confrontation.
Again, we don't know who initiated the physical confrontation. If it were Zimmerman, he is at least guilty of manslaughter. If it were Martin, Zimmerman was justified in shooting if he feared for his life. He was stupid to have placed himself in such a position, but even stupid people have a right to defend themselves. (So long as they are merely stupid and not life-threateningly criminal.)
-
No, this thread does NOT provide some of the strongest ammo to anti-gunners. "Those evil gun-lunatics at APS are hesitant to lynch an idiot." That is the only ammo provided. No one is questioning the fact that Zimmerman probably used bad judgment. No one is questioning that Zimmerman should have avoided escalating the situation. No one is questioning that it may be a murky shooting. Folks ARE questioning the desire to lynch the guy without access to all of the facts. Yes, SOME evidence is public knowledge. But pretty friggin far from all of them.
Ayup.
-
As we all know there is always at least three sides to every story. Too bad one side here will never be told.
-
If the eyewitness account in the article is correct, Zimmerman may not have even drawn his gun until he was on the ground with Trayvon on top of him. And even then he may not have drawn until he had received the wound to the back of the head, possibly by Trayvon hitting his head against the ground.
IF that is the case, this still make the story phenomenally poor judgement--but understandable.
ETA as a further note, I saw an interview on CNN with a local police person (who was black coincidentally) who had listened to the tapes and said there were no racial slurs uttered.
-
What I don't get about this is, being a pro self defence community, why is no one talking about trayvon's right to self defence?
That witness might well have have seen trayvon trying to subdue an armed and mentally disturbed attacker. Given the tapes, I think it's likely that trayvon had a legal right to defend himself by force from this oddly behaving attacker.
Or does only the gun holding party get considered a candidate for self defence?
As a matter of pure practicality, only Zimmerman had a gun. Interestingly, under the HYG law, Trayvon might have had a justifiable reason to draw a gun and fire under the circumstance (although this might have become murky if he became involved in a fight with Zimmerman that he initiated, and IMHO facts here are VERY MURKY) if he believed his life was threatened.
I'm not sure refering to Zimmerman as "mentally disturbed" is justified. He definantly showed rotten judgement when he left the car and started pursuing Trayvon after the 911 op said "we don't need you to do that," but that doesn't mean he's mentally disturbed.
-
It would be interesting to know when Zimmerman drew the gun. If some guy was cruising along following me, jumped out of it to confront me, and had a gun drawn (or his hand on a holstered one for that matter) I'd be inclined to use force against him.
-
how does using force on the guy with the drawn gun work out?
-
how does using force on the guy with the drawn gun work out?
Self defense, of course! =D
-
More evidence that Zimmerman might be violent.
He was involved in domestic-violence petitions with his ex-fiance.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-21/news/os-george-zimmerman-domestic-violence-20120321_1_petitions-documents-injunctions
Was previously arrested (not charged) with assault on a police officer.
http://www.thefloridanewsjournal.com/2012/03/09/sanford-crime-watch-captain-george-zimmerman-did-have-previous-arrest-record-2005-battery
-
The domestic looks like a "he said / she said" event, and the other was "suspicion of battery on a law enforcement officer" which, since, it was dropped, doesn't sound like he slugged a cop. Nothing too damning here.
We still don't know - and I mean KNOW - how the violence actually started. If the violence was initiated by Trayvon, maybe, just maybe, the shoot was justified. But if Zimmerman initiated the violence by grabbing or attempting to restrain the guy and started getting pummeled himself . . . uh uh. I don't know about Florida, but in Texas, if you start a fight with someone, saying you shot them in self defense when you started getting the worst of it won't fly in court.
Still more speculation than fact in this thread, but I'm making a note to myself to stay in my bleeping car if I ever call the police to report a suspicious person in my neighborhood.
-
Zimmerman is at a minimum, a complete idiot. Probably a fool as well.
As for Trayvon, honestly have no idea. Yes, if Zimmerman hit him first, he absolutely deserves every right to defend himself and hopefully Zimmerman goes to jail for a long time. It won't bring him back, but it'd be some level of justice. If he hit Zimmerman first, even in socially justified manner (ie saying something not polite or whatnot), he initiated the escalation of force and that matters legally. Hitting someone doesn't necessarily justify use of lethal force. If I had no arms and started kicking you in the knees, you'd probably go to jail even under Castle Doctrine if you killed me with a firearm.
Personally, if I was one of the cops, even if it wasn't murder/manslaughter, I'd try hit the guy for at least something minor to take the guy's concealed permit. Zimmerman may or may not be guilty of murder, that is up to the legal system to decide. But he sure as hell used bad judgment that led to a fatal shooting that EASILY COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED. I am fairly sure Florida law likely has a provision to revoke a permit if someone is a bloody idiot. (Yes, yes, I know it'd be written more formally.)
No, this thread does NOT provide some of the strongest ammo to anti-gunners. "Those evil gun-lunatics at APS are hesitant to lynch an idiot." That is the only ammo provided. No one is questioning the fact that Zimmerman probably used bad judgment. No one is questioning that Zimmerman should have avoided escalating the situation. No one is questioning that it may be a murky shooting. Folks ARE questioning the desire to lynch the guy without access to all of the facts. Yes, SOME evidence is public knowledge. But pretty friggin far from all of them.
Yep.
No doubt Zimmerman is an idiot, first class, A#1 prime grade USDA. I don't think anyone here disputes that.
Stand your ground and just plain older self defense law comes down to who touched who first. Or, if Trayvon was otherwise given a reasonable belief he was in grave danger of bodily harm or cornered trapped, than Zimmerman may be at fault.
We just don't know.
In fact, the courts and DA may never know either, and Zimmerman may walk just through presumption of innocence in the face of a lack of evidence.
Just let the system work. It's in no way guaranteed to deliver satisfactory results, but it's the best we've got, and all the alternatives are worse.
-
Just let the system work. It's in no way guaranteed to deliver satisfactory results, but it's the best we've got, and all the alternatives are worse.
This
-
Just let the system work. It's in no way guaranteed to deliver satisfactory results, but it's the best we've got, and all the alternatives are worse.
The Holder DOJ is looking to prevent that.
-
The Holder DOJ is looking to prevent that.
Well he is in desperate need of a sideshow to take the heat off himself.
-
how does using force on the guy with the drawn gun work out?
if you're at arms length the rule is "rush a gun,run from a knife"
-
how does using force on the guy with the drawn gun work out?
Better than letting him shoot you without fighting back?
-
I suspect Balog has some experience with self-defense against people who'd already had guns drawn.
-
In all fairness, I always had a rifle on me too so it's not exactly the same. ;)
I dunno, I think of things like VA Tech where one loser with a pistol kills so many people just because no one wants to rush him. We're all gonna die someday. I'd prefer it not be today, but when I go I want to go down swinging.
-
In all fairness, I always had a rifle on me too so it's not exactly the same. ;)
I dunno, I think of things like VA Tech where one loser with a pistol kills so many people just because no one wants to rush him. We're all gonna die someday. I'd prefer it not be today, but when I go I want to go down swinging.
I pray daily that I am able to do the same.
-
Police chief investigating killing of Florida teen steps down
http://news.yahoo.com/florida-police...204033792.html
SANFORD, Florida (Reuters) - The police chief of a Florida town where an unarmed black teenager was killed by a neighborhood watch volunteer said on Thursday he would temporarily step down from his job, saying his role in the investigation had become too much of a distraction.
Maybe he should spend his time wearing a hoodie, and walking the streets of gated communities at night to see what happens.
He might learn a thing or two.
-
i think he could learn as much and quicker walking through liberty town at night sans badge and uniform
-
I bet he already knows not to walk around in thug-wear.
-
I bet he already knows not to walk around in thug-wear.
I'm sure some politician will get around to suggesting they ban hoodies.
-
The domestic looks like a "he said / she said" event, and the other was "suspicion of battery on a law enforcement officer" which, since, it was dropped, doesn't sound like he slugged a cop. Nothing too damning here.
We still don't know - and I mean KNOW - how the violence actually started. If the violence was initiated by Trayvon, maybe, just maybe, the shoot was justified. But if Zimmerman initiated the violence by grabbing or attempting to restrain the guy and started getting pummeled himself . . . uh uh. I don't know about Florida, but in Texas, if you start a fight with someone, saying you shot them in self defense when you started getting the worst of it won't fly in court.
Still more speculation than fact in this thread, but I'm making a note to myself to stay in my bleeping car if I ever call the police to report a suspicious person in my neighborhood.
I would argue Zimmerman likely started the violence by pursuing Treyvon over an extended period without evidence of a real crime.
-
I would argue Zimmerman likely started the violence by pursuing Treyvon over an extended period without evidence of a real crime.
So following someone is violence now?
It's not a crime to follow someone. In fact I believe the Supreme Court has ruled police don't even need probable cause to follow someone in public.
I didn't know that they were initiating violence when they did so.
And I hate that I have to repeat what I'ge said before, but I'm not saying that Zimmerman is innocent nor that he was wise to follow Martin, simply that following someone is not "starting voilence." Throwing a punch is starting violence, "fighting words" is starting violence. Following someone is not.
-
And you'd be winning a conviction with that argument, Jamis.
The advice and claims out here about who threw the punch are downright harmful - note to armed citizens: if you chase people down without cause and they reasonably could have believed you to be a threat, you have no right to respond to self defence measures taken by them.
In this case, whether trayvon hit first is not going to decide the case - he could have mangled zimmermans face through entirely lawful self defence, even with a first hit.
The reason so many here are so far off on the legal analysis is that they're forgetting to consider trayvon's legal rights. Factor those in and you have a pretty open and shut case from the prosecution side.
And rev disk, when you have Roo ster suggesting that trespassing and wearing a hoodie give reasonable cause for a lethal force encounter, you most certainly are giving ammo to the anti-gunners. If thatwere actually what self defence meant I'd want the law changed too.
-
So following someone is violence now?
It's not a crime to follow someone. In fact I believe the Supreme Court has ruled police don't even need probable cause to follow someone in public.
I didn't know that they were initiating violence when they did so.
It is a crime to make someone reasonably fear that you will attack them without justification, which is pretty obviously what Zimmerman did from his tapes.
Edit: Running after someone who was minding his own business, to the point that he runs away from you, is a crime
-
So following someone is violence now?
It's not a crime to follow someone. In fact I believe the Supreme Court has ruled police don't even need probable cause to follow someone in public.
I didn't know that they were initiating violence when they did so.
And I hate that I have to repeat what I'ge said before, but I'm not saying that Zimmerman is innocent nor that he was wise to follow Martin, simply that following someone is not "starting voilence." Throwing a punch is starting violence, "fighting words" is starting violence. Following someone is not.
The question will be did he merely follow, or actively chase and attempt to detain. Chase down kid and scare the beejeesus out of him, he might fight like a cornered cat.
How many of us if we were minding our own business and suddenly being chased would sooner or later stop and stand our ground?
-
I'm sure some politician will get around to suggesting they ban hoodies.
I believe this was tried in England, or at least suggested a few yrs ago.
-
And rev disk, when you have Roo ster suggesting that trespassing and wearing a hoodie give reasonable cause for a lethal force encounter, you most certainly are giving ammo to the anti-gunners. If thatwere actually what self defence meant I'd want the law changed too.
De Selby-
From re-reading the entire thread, you have come across as the penchant anti-gunner by far.
-
De Selby-
From re-reading the entire thread, you have come across as the penchant anti-gunner by far.
How is that??? Because I don't think playing cops and robbers and accidentally killing someone as a result is ok?
-
The question will be did he merely follow, or actively chase and attempt to detain. Chase down kid and scare the beejeesus out of him, he might fight like a cornered cat.
How many of us if we were minding our own business and suddenly being chased would sooner or later stop and stand our ground?
And...
And you'd be winning a conviction with that argument, Jamis.
The advice and claims out here about who threw the punch are downright harmful - note to armed citizens: if you chase people down without cause and they reasonably could have believed you to be a threat, you have no right to respond to self defence measures taken by them.
In this case, whether trayvon hit first is not going to decide the case - he could have mangled zimmermans face through entirely lawful self defence, even with a first hit.
The reason so many here are so far off on the legal analysis is that they're forgetting to consider trayvon's legal rights. Factor those in and you have a pretty open and shut case from the prosecution side.
And rev disk, when you have Roo ster suggesting that trespassing and wearing a hoodie give reasonable cause for a lethal force encounter, you most certainly are giving ammo to the anti-gunners. If thatwere actually what self defence meant I'd want the law changed too.
And I would say that the advice from those defending Mr. Martin's actions is more dangerous.
I have repeatedly said that Mr. Zimmerman was foolish to follow after Mr. Martin. (AND I don't really know how to emphasize that enough since the Martin supporters seem to think everyone opposed to them is saying "Good shoot. Open and shut case!")
You and Jamis, however, seem to be saying that you would justified in assaulting someone for the mere act of following you.
Pointing this out, I have forced the both of you to amend that to "chasing down and attempting to detain". That is a SIGNIFICANTLY different action than "following". I don't think the fact that he was following him is in dispute. Whether he "chased him down" or "attempted to detain" him is. Which is what most of us not calling for Mr. Zimmerman to be strung up on the nearest tree are saying.
Further, even if you have been "chased down and attempted to be restrained" you are not allowed to continue your assault on your follower after you have ended the threat. Once you have ended the threat you are now the assaulter if you, for instance, jump on top of your assailant and continue to beat him.
Once again, I must point out that I am not saying that is what occured. I am, however, saying that is yet another matter where we don't have all the facts.
-
The tragic problem is that it is often difficult for people to act reasonably during what they believe to be a violent encounter.
For example if I am attacked and I shoot my attacker, the threat might be already over - but from my perspective, he's still moving and standing and maybe he's reaching for a gun - so I shoot him several times in the space of a few seconds. Yes, from a later video analysis it will be shown that he was no longer a threat by the time the last shot entered his body.
Or in a fist-fight it is possible for a person to get punched or kicked several times after they're no longer a threat.
This is why:
1. People should avoid getting into a violent encounter unless they have a damn good reason to do so.
2. Police, prosecutors, and judges should not attempt to nitpick every moment of a self-defense encounter from the confines of an air-conditioned room.
-
Mak, this is bizarre - have you listened to the tapes??? Zimmerman says "these a holes always get away!" just before you hear him start to breath heavily - as if running. I don't think it's unfair to take his own words as evidence of what he was doing.
Perhaps Zimmerman got all his advice on self defence law from the "shoot trespassers!" crowd on gun forums; that might explain why he thought this was a good idea.
Had he spoken to a real lawyer (that category includes me, btw) and discussed this scenario, he might not be facing certain indictment and highly probable conviction today. Some of the claims haunting the forums about self defence law right now are so wrong headed it's scary.
Chasing people for no good reason while armed isn't just bad policy or a screw up; it's usually going to be a crime, and it will be a serious crime when you end up shooting someone as a result.
-
There's a lot of speculation out there . . . and not just on this forum. One story I read (on the Internet, so it must be true, right?) claims that Zimmerman had some sort of a wound on the back of his head, which would be consistent with being struck from behind as he was walking or running away. This could change the whole dynamic of the encounter, and the ultimate legal result.
Is this account true? I don't know. Any more than I know whether or not Zimmerman tried to illegally detain someone just for being a black guy in the "wrong" neighborhood.
What little we actually know doesn't show Zimmerman in a good light - at all. At best, he showed poor judgement, but there won't be enough evidence for criminal charges. At worst - some solid evidence will come to light and he'll be facing murder charges.
But it seems that some folks have already decided who's 100% at fault and what the legal outcome ought to be without having enough actual facts or evidence to make an informed conclusion.
-
They had some lawyer on the radio last night who made the point that the 911 operators "we don't need you to do that" comment was not a lawful police order; it wasn't even coming from a police officer, and it's unlikely a police officer could even make such a lawful order over the phone. Could the prosecution possibly use it to show Zimmerman had poor judgement? I don't know, but people are putting too much on the 911 comment. If I ever call 911 and the operator tries to give me friendly advice I will most likely ignore that too.
-
There's a lot of speculation out there . . . and not just on this forum. One story I read (on the Internet, so it must be true, right?) claims that Zimmerman had some sort of a wound on the back of his head, which would be consistent with being struck from behind as he was walking or running away. This could change the whole dynamic of the encounter, and the ultimate legal result.
Is this account true? I don't know. Any more than I know whether or not Zimmerman tried to illegally detain someone just for being a black guy in the "wrong" neighborhood.
What little we actually know doesn't show Zimmerman in a good light - at all. At best, he showed poor judgement, but there won't be enough evidence for criminal charges. At worst - some solid evidence will come to light and he'll be facing murder charges.
But it seems that some folks have already decided who's 100% at fault and what the legal outcome ought to be without having enough actual facts or evidence to make an informed conclusion.m
The tapes are enough to convict him - there basically is no defence available to him, that is my point. Even if trayvon was hiding in the bushes and attacked him by surprise - that will reduce his sentence, it won't work to keep him out of jail.
The tapes are a great lesson in what not to do for ccwers - you can't do what he did and remain within the law.
Zahc, it's true that the 911 "order" isn't that significant - its the chase to someone who wasnt doing anything wrong thats the problem
-
You and Jamis, however, seem to be saying that you would justified in assaulting someone for the mere act of following you.
Pointing this out, I have forced the both of you to amend that to "chasing down and attempting to detain". That is a SIGNIFICANTLY different action than "following". I don't think the fact that he was following him is in dispute. Whether he "chased him down" or "attempted to detain" him is.
Well at what point does following become a chase? After Zimmerman was observing Trayvon for a bit he comments to the 911 dispatcher that Trayvon was running and that he was following. Isn't following someone who is running a chase at that point?
According to Zimmerman he was attacked from behind when he stopped his car to check the street he was on. How does the person you where following end up behind you? How did the fight end up in someone's backyard if you where jumped on the street?
-
?
Mak, this is bizarre - have you listened to the tapes??? Zimmerman says "these a holes always get away!" just before you hear him start to breath heavily - as if running. I don't think it's unfair to take his own words as evidence of what he was doing.
De Selby -
You are making the ASSUMPTION that his breathing heavily means he was running after Mr. Martin. What if Zimmerman's comment about them, "always getting away," meant that Zimmerman had lost him, and was jogging back to his car?
Your damning of Mr. Zimmerman comes solely from conjecture and assumption. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. You have your interpretation of the tapes. That is all the "evidence" you have. Right now, the only FACTS we have are that Zimmerman was following Martin. Zimmerman at some point was injured (head laceration). And Martin was shot.
Beyond that it is merely speculation, and as an attorney, you should know just how much weight speculation carries in a court of law.
No one here is saying this was a good shoot. Zimmerman made several mistakes. The first of which was getting out of his car to confront Martin. No one is defending Zimmerman's mistakes. In fact, I think the only thing here that everyone agrees on is that his decision to confront Martin was really, really STUPID.
What we are saying is that until he is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers, he is innocent. Is he smart? Not at all. Did he make good decisions? Absolutely not. Can we use him as a poster boy for bad decision making? You bet.
Did he commit a crime? WE DON'T KNOW YET.
NO ONE here is saying this is a totally good shoot that we can stand behind. But until we have more evidence (not conjecture, or speculation, or assumption), we simply cannot say one way or the other.
-
1. People should avoid getting into a violent encounter unless they have a damn good reason to do so.
2. Police, prosecutors, people on the internetz, and judges should not attempt to nitpick every moment of a self-defense encounter from the confines of an air-conditioned room
Had to add that in.
---------------------------------
One of the major problems is that different people want to have the incident to have happened in a way that fits their own personal worldview and prejudices.
From observing and taking part in discussions on this incident on several other sites, it seems that anti-gunners and race-baiters everywhere seem to have already tried Zimmermann and found him guilty, while those who are just a bit worried about having their rights taken away in a knee-jerk reaction from politicians are reluctantly defending Zimmermann, or at least asking others to keep a cool head until all the facts were known.
-
How is that??? Because I don't think playing cops and robbers and accidentally killing someone as a result is ok?
?
De Selby -
Your damning of Mr. Zimmerman comes solely from conjecture and assumption. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. You have your interpretation of the tapes. That is all the "evidence" you have. Right now, the only FACTS we have are that Zimmerman was following Martin. Zimmerman at some point was injured (head laceration). And Martin was shot.
Beyond that it is merely speculation, and as an attorney, you should know just how much weight speculation carries in a court of law.
NO ONE here is saying this is a totally good shoot that we can stand behind. But until we have more evidence (not conjecture, or speculation, or assumption), we simply cannot say one way or the other.
No, De Selby, due to Ambulance Driver's observations here, to which I concur.
You automatically crucified Zimmerman by assuming the worse of his actions.
You also immediately exonerated the kid at the same time.
Right now I, and most of the others here I believe, are throwing around some speculations, but are withholding final judgement until more evidence facts are available.
I like the fact that we can chew through different possible scenarios and results without the crucifixion.
Your comments have struck me as argumentative since you seem to have fixated on one solution from the beginning, and chastise those who don't share your beliefs.
-
Had to add that in.
---------------------------------
One of the major problems is that different people want to have the incident to have happened in a way that fits their own personal worldview and prejudices.
From observing and taking part in discussions on this incident on several other sites, it seems that anti-gunners and race-baiters everywhere seem to have already tried Zimmermann and found him guilty, while those who are just a bit worried about having their rights taken away in a knee-jerk reaction from politicians are reluctantly defending Zimmermann, or at least asking others to keep a cool head until all the facts were known.
Pretty much this. There's nothing on this thread that really pertains to the case, it's just a good view into the various posters thoughts. Annoyingly, De Selby's version is the most likely based on the totality of evidence we have. A lot of the, shall we say, more fanciful hypothetical versions others are positing that would reduce Zimmerman's culpability are certainly possible, but not very likely. Also, hasn't the "fighting words" idea been ruled as not a valid thing?
On the trespass thing, I think it's worth noting that there are degrees just as there are in all crimes. I was walking my dogs the other day and one of them pooped on a neighbors lawn. When I stepped onto that lawn to pick it up I suppose I was technically trespassing. If some guy with a gun jumped out of his car, ran up on me, and started shouting angry demands to know what I was doing I'd be inclined to feel a bit threatened myself... Edit: and I was wearing a hoodie at the time! /gasp
-
From observing and taking part in discussions on this incident on several other sites, it seems that anti-gunners and race-baiters everywhere seem to have already tried Zimmermann and found him guilty, while those who are just a bit worried about having their rights taken away in a knee-jerk reaction from politicians are reluctantly defending Zimmermann, or at least asking others to keep a cool head until all the facts were known.
TBF I think the worst thing about this is that it seems that it took a scandal in order to have this lads death investigated appropriately, its allowed various people to use this for their own ends (the daft demands for this law to be repealed for instance, even though from what Zimmerman apparently did and how the law has been described over here its hard to see how he could ever claim a defence under it) and will probably mean that the truth of what happened will end up being drowned out by all the shouting.
-
The tapes are enough to convict him - there basically is no defence available to him, that is my point. Even if trayvon was hiding in the bushes and attacked him by surprise - that will reduce his sentence, it won't work to keep him out of jail.
The tapes are a great lesson in what not to do for ccwers - you can't do what he did and remain within the law.
Zahc, it's true that the 911 "order" isn't that significant - its the chase to someone who wasnt doing anything wrong thats the problem
Before you make such grandiose statements you might recall the O.J. Simpson trial. He had "no defense" available to him, right?
Wrong.
Zommerman isn't O.J. for sure. The tapes may or may not work for Zimmerman. Before you write Zimmerman's legal epitaph you might take a lesson from Sherlock Holmes;
"Any fact, when viewed from a different perspective, will yield a different interpretation."
Now, you want to tell me again how a good defense lawyer couldn't "interpret" those tapes and make something out for Zimmermman?
It isn't always just about the facts .... it's also what a clever lawyer can convince a jury to believe about said facts.
"If the glove don't fit you must acquit!"
-
Before you make such grandiose statements you might recall the O.J. Simpson trial. He had "no defense" available to him, right?
Wrong.
"If the glove don't fit you must acquit!"
Holy *expletive deleted*it! There is a real world gut check!
-
Holy *expletive deleted*it! There is a real world gut check!
I was thinking more like a real world ****-up.
Are you implying it can't happen again? [popcorn] ;/
-
The worst of this case--in which I suspect justice will ultimately be done--is the way it is already being exploited by all the expected political provocateurs. The Castle Doctrine is not the issue here. Nor is white racism. Nor are gun rights. There are people out there, and some in high places, who would just as soon ban guns and white people, not necessarily in that order. There is so much hypocrisy in all this, dramatized by someone like Al Sharpton being anywhere near the venue. Maybe one of these days we will hear about all the "hate crimes" committed by young blacks on whites in highly disproportionate rates and how those stories are routinely covered up. I'm not holding my breath. We have a band of twisted zealots who would like nothing better than a real, all-out race war in America, and we'd better zero in on them and not on isolated tragic incidents if we don't want this great country to burn up.
-
I was thinking more like a real world ****-up.
Are you implying it can't happen again? [popcorn] ;/
No! That is can and does regularly.
-
I hate it when I have to agree with DeSelby.
Up until Zimmerman confronted him, Martin had broken no laws (not even trespass, as he apparently was staying with relatives who live in the gated community.)
Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, by getting out of his truck. Period. End. Full Stop. Martin had every right to stand his ground (even though apparently he did try to flee, indicating that he was in some fear of his life or great bodily harm).
Zimmerman was completely in the wrong no matter who hit whom first.
Do we not teach our kids to be fearful of strangers? Especially ones following them in cars?
Do we not teach them to try to get away from someone trying to grab or detain them?
Do we not teach them to use every means necessary (punch, kick, bite, claw) to escape from someone trying to hurt or grab them?
So put yourself Martin's position and tell me again what he did wrong.
-
I hate it when I have to agree with DeSelby.
Up until Zimmerman confronted him, Martin had broken no laws (not even trespass, as he apparently was staying with relatives who live in the gated community.)
Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, by getting out of his truck. Period. End. Full Stop. Martin had every right to stand his ground (even though apparently he did try to flee, indicating that he was in some fear of his life or great bodily harm).
Zimmerman was completely in the wrong no matter who hit whom first.
Do we not teach our kids to be fearful of strangers? Especially ones following them in cars?
Do we not teach them to try to get away from someone trying to grab or detain them?
Do we not teach them to use every means necessary (punch, kick, bite, claw) to escape from someone trying to hurt or grab them?
So put yourself Martin's position and tell me again what he did wrong.
Based on what we do know, and its very little, that is completely correct.
Unless the police are wholely incompetent, and I don't belive that is the case, (there's that 'belief' word again) Zimmermann would be in custody a long time ago unless there is something the police know that we don't.
-
I hate it when I have to agree with DeSelby.
Up until Zimmerman confronted him, Martin had broken no laws (not even trespass, as he apparently was staying with relatives who live in the gated community.)
Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, by getting out of his truck. Period. End. Full Stop. Martin had every right to stand his ground (even though apparently he did try to flee, indicating that he was in some fear of his life or great bodily harm).
Scout, I agree with you right up to this point.
None of these facts is in dispute. The part that remains to be established is what happened after this point. Zimmerman's account (as best as I can find) is that Martin eluded him, then as Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle, he was jumped by Martin.
This is the crux of the issue. And this is what a grand jury, and ultimately (I believe) a jury will be asked to decide.
IF (and I agree it's a mighty big if) the facts are as Zimmerman states, that he was returning to his vehicle after losing Martin and was jumped, then I believe this is a good shoot. If the facts are not as he states, then he's in deep kimshi....
-
The emotional side.
This might be obvious to some, and taboo to talk about by others...
We have a very photogenic and handsome young black man with what looks like a squeaky clean record that that was killed while getting candy by a gun wielding ogerish-looking (as depicted by media at least) whitish-hispanic male on a rampage with a germanic surname.
This incident is the mass media's wettest dream which gives them way more than a tingle down their collective legs.
They've drawn political cartoons in the past about such ideas, but they now have it in the flesh.
A person's appearance does have a very big impact when on trial whether in a legal court or in the court of public opinion.
Edit: The Narcissist in Chief agrees with me:
"My main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin. You know, if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon. And you know, I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves and that we're get to the bottom of exactly what happened," Obama said in response to a shouted question in the White House Rose Garden.
Amid angry charges that race played a central role in the tragedy, Obama said "all of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how does something like this happen—and that means that we examine the laws and the context for what happened as well as the specifics of the incident."
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-had-son-d-look-trayvon-144936867.html
-
Soul-searching indeed. I suggest Mr Obama begin by talking about the black flash mobs and Major Hasan.
And somebody please tell Sharpton that Zimmerman's not exactly a poster child for White Racism. Inconvenient, I know, but we all have our challenges.
-
I bet he already knows not to walk around in thug-wear.
I'm sure some politician will get around to suggesting they ban hoodies.
I believe this was tried in England, or at least suggested a few yrs ago.
Reality: Too unbelievable to be classified fiction.
Well at what point does following become a chase?
The fact that you (and I, and others) are asking that question WRT this incident means we hve not enough facts to make an informed determination.
TBF I think the worst thing about this is that it seems that it took a scandal in order to have this lads death investigated appropriately, its allowed various people to use this for their own ends (the daft demands for this law to be repealed for instance, even though from what Zimmerman apparently did and how the law has been described over here its hard to see how he could ever claim a defence under it) and will probably mean that the truth of what happened will end up being drowned out by all the shouting.
If "TBF" is supposed to mean "To Be Fair," you are not. Every new article seems to bring forth one new tidbit that muddies the water for the "Lynch the Spic Shooter" crowd. Lacerations requiring stitches on the back of Zimmerman's head, grass stains on the back of his shirt, witnesses who got an eyeball on parts of the mess, etc. etc.
Thing is, the local LEOs say they already performed an investigation and didn't find reason to arrest Zimmerman. Also, after it blew up, the local LEOs opened their books for the state and will now do so for the federales. The local LEOs make noise like they got nothing to hide, rather than circling the wagons like some LEO agencies we have seen do in the past. Once again, we have not the data to say for sure an "appropriate investigation" was performed, but just because Al Sharpton says there has not been is not enough for a reasonable man.
Could there have been a slipshod investigation before? Sure, but what is the evidence that points that way? That Zimmerman has not been arrested. Given that we have not enough data to determine if he committed a crime, that is shaky & circular logic. For LEOs, arresting someone (other than a black professor at an ivy league school) is a low-risk proposition (see sovereign immunity). When in doubt, break out the steel bracelets and let the reptilian lawyers(1) figure it out is what most my buddies who are LEOs run with.
============
Late 19th Century:
White racist mobs (and their apologists) lynching black men from a convenient tree.
Early 21st Century:
Black racist mobs (and their apologists) lynching hispanic/multi-racial men from a convenient keyboard.
============
(1) The cops I know have an equally low opinion of prosecutors as they have of defense attorneys.
-
On hoodie bans:
http://www.news.com.au/national/brisbane-stores-to-ban-hoodies-in-crime-crackdown/story-e6frfkvr-1226083800110
-
On hoodie bans:
http://www.news.com.au/national/brisbane-stores-to-ban-hoodies-in-crime-crackdown/story-e6frfkvr-1226083800110
"The Stupid is strong with this one."
Yeah, hoodies are the problem. Sort of like automobiles are the problem WRT drive-by shootings.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ljy_SHODEU&feature=share
Well holy hell, wouldn't have believed it until i heard it. Geraldo Rivera is claiming that the hoodie is just as much to blame for they shooting as Zimmerman is. What's wrong with Geraldo? I didn't think it was possible for anyone was scared of a damn sweater with a hood on it. Everyone I know owns at least one hoodie, hell I own multiple. Is this a relatively new piece of clothing that's intimidating to older folk (I say this as a 25 year old)? Do you guys own hoodies? Own jackets with hoods attached to them? What the big damn difference?
-
Rivera is a *expletive deleted*bag of the first degree.
He has been on a losing streak since opening that mobster's empty safe years ago.
Typical Fox News crappola.
Maybe we should all walk around naked to eliminate all clothing issues.
In addition to hoodies, let's ban trench coats, any color darker than blue, watch caps, full face knit winter protection, any coat that is not pink, all athletic logo clothing, athletic shoes (which were only made to help criminals run faster), tattoos, body piercing, any hair darker than brunette, all facial hair, sunglasses, tanning that makes skin darker, large noses, heavy eyebrows, and large dogs.
Oh, yeah, those masculine heavy cable knitted sweaters!
*expletive deleted*ing news media hype bullshiite!
I would replace him with anyone on this forum, and the credibility would increase fourfold.
Hell, if it was Fistful, we could blame him for everything!!!
-
In addition to hoodies, let's ban trench coats, any color darker than blue, watch caps, full face knit winter protection, any coat that is not pink, all athletic logo clothing, athletic shoes (which were only made to help criminals run faster), tattoos, body piercing, any hair darker than brunette, all facial hair, sunglasses, tanning that makes skin darker, large noses, heavy eyebrows, and large dogs.
You forgot ballcaps with the brim worn flat.
and spandex.
spandex on anyone but a very select few could justify a homicide.
-
Listen to the 911 tape. (ignore the pics and commentary)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL72w4xiTVU
Zimmerman says he's watching Martin.
Then at :49 Zimmerman says that Martin is staring at him.
At :59 Zimmerman says that Martin is coming toward him.
At 1:22 "He's coming to check me out"
At 1:38 "These aholes always get away"
At 2:08 "He's running"
Sounds to me like Martin saw Zimmerman following him, got somewhat closer to see Zimmerman, (There is no indication of any kind of communication between them) and then took off running away from Zimmerman, WHO GOT OUT OF HIS TRUCK AND CHASED HIM !!!
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
Someone who follows my son in a vehicle, then gets out and chases him, best believe that my son is going to put up one helluva fight.
Tell me again what Martin did that was wrong?
-
Ironically, Martin was standing his ground, as he had all right to.....
-
https://www.google.com/#q=army+hoodies&hl=en&prmd=imvns&source=univ&tbm=shop&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=t_9sT-yeJOS00QGI_LizBg&sqi=2&ved=0CLQBEK0E&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=275a4c0bc02f1104&biw=1333&bih=645
Thug wear?
-
Ironically, Martin was standing his ground, as he had all right to.....
DING DING DING
We have a winner !!!!
-
http://www.universalhub.com/crime/20090324-man_mugged_by_thugs_in_hoodies_in.html
http://www.def-shop.com/Thug-Life/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-499845/Jeremy-Clarkson-launches-attack-teenage-thugs-hoodies-ruin-daughters-birthday.html
gonna play the game? learn to wear the name
-
DING DING DING
We have a winner !!!!
Why thank you! I will pass on the wet sloppy kiss, though! =D
-
http://www.universalhub.com/crime/20090324-man_mugged_by_thugs_in_hoodies_in.html
http://www.def-shop.com/Thug-Life/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-499845/Jeremy-Clarkson-launches-attack-teenage-thugs-hoodies-ruin-daughters-birthday.html
gonna play the game? learn to wear the name
Anyone who believes spotting a hooded sweatshirt is grounds for armed action needs to have his guns taken away.
-
has spmeone said that? or are you just being lawyerly?
-
has spmeone said that? or are you just being lawyerly?
What's the point of all this posting about hooded sweatshirts? Or was that not meant to imply that trayvon's appearance justified this event in part?
-
so you are being lawyerly? haven't read all the posts and links?
-
http://www.universalhub.com/crime/20090324-man_mugged_by_thugs_in_hoodies_in.html
http://www.def-shop.com/Thug-Life/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-499845/Jeremy-Clarkson-launches-attack-teenage-thugs-hoodies-ruin-daughters-birthday.html
gonna play the game? learn to wear the name
Really?
So my hooded White Sox 2005 World Series hooded sweatshirt makes me a thug? What about my Gadsden Flag Yellow Illinois Gun Owner Lobby Day hoodie that I wear when I visit the state legislature? The plain blue lyrca one that my son wore to school because it was misting and a little cold? What about the ones that our soldiers wear as PT gear?
You've hit bottom C&SD and have started to dig.
-
if one goes for an image wears the uniform as it were one should expect certain reactions. if i wear a white collar i expect an upgrade to first class if i fly to ireland
when i wore my hair to my ass favored the gaudy ear rings and wore leather i got a cretain reaction and it was part of what i wanted.
sadly it also got me attention i'd rather have avoided.
if you think its just the hoody and that a guy like you wearing one is the same you are either disingenuous or naive
if i, a chubby 1/2 white boy wear a hoody and try to look like a thug all i come off as is pathetic
young kid 6 foot plus at night in a different hood gets a different result
in the real world anyway
-
Anyone who believes spotting a hooded sweatshirt is grounds for armed action needs to have his guns taken away.
Again, I have to agree with DeSelby.
So according to C&SD, wearing the wrong clothes can be a death sentence, if you run into a rent-a-cop wannabe who wants to be judge, jury and executioner....
;/ ;/
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
-
We've got some lawyers and a judge here -- let's say for a minute that the police don't really have enough evidence for an arrest initially, but they think it's probably a bad shoot and they are still investigating. But they bow to political pressure and arrest him anyway while the investigation is ongoing. Where does the defendant's right to a speedy trial kick in? Could it force the prosecutor to go to trial before he's ready, then the shooter gets off when he should have been convicted?
Seems to me the prudent thing to do might be to investigate the shooting *before* making an arrest. It's not like they don't know where he lives.
Almost everybody who can get in front of a camera is calling for Zimmerman to be arrested and convicted (they skip over the trial; I guess it's not important.) What they are really calling for is a good old fashion lynchin', they just want the state to do it so they don't have to get their hands dirty.
Hold off on the outrage until the investigation is closed prematurely or there's an obvious coverup. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Not yet.
Sorry, I got on a soapbox. What about that speedy trial thing?
-
Anyone who believes spotting a hooded sweatshirt is grounds for armed action needs to have his guns taken away.
:facepalm: No one seriously believes that a fashion crime should receive capitol punishment, DeSelby. ;/
-
if one goes for an image wears the uniform as it were one should expect certain reactions. if i wear a white collar i expect an upgrade to first class if i fly to ireland
when i wore my hair to my ass favored the gaudy ear rings and wore leather i got a cretain reaction and it was part of what i wanted.
sadly it also got me attention i'd rather have avoided.
if you think its just the hoody and that a guy like you wearing one is the same you are either disingenuous or naive
if i, a chubby 1/2 white boy wear a hoody and try to look like a thug all i come off as is pathetic
young kid 6 foot plus at night in a different hood gets a different result
in the real world anyway
Help me, C&SD. Do you make it a habit to run after random 'thuggish' looking individuals, who are not presently assaulting anybody and are walking down the street?
See if I see an individual that I think is looking shifty or potentially violent, my instinct is to stay away from them.
What Zimmerman did was not sensible. Maybe - we do not yet know - he acted in self-defense later. Maybe he didn't. But he did not act like a smart, reasonable person.
-
Sort of like automobiles are the problem WRT drive-by shootings.
Agreed.
Also like guns are the problem WRT humans wanting to kill one another. When things get messy, some folk just start blaming inanimate objects.
In regards to this whole story, I have a few dogs I could let get into this fight (race, police conduct, good vs. bad shoot, etc.), but I'm waiting on more facts.
-
I don't think CS&D is advocating that wearing a hoodie justifies getting shot up anymore than a woman wearing provocative clothes justifies a sexual assualt. I think he is pointing out the tendency of folks to associate certain characteristics/mannerisms/dress styles with certain stereotypes. Just because the tendency exist doesn't make it right.
If a person dresses like a farmer it isn't out of place for people to think he might be a farmer. If a person dresses like a gangbanger ( and I don't know for sure that the kid was dressed like a gangbanger) some people are going to assume that they are a gangbanger. Don't make it right but it just is.
And, as far as banning hoodies is concerned, if they try to do that I'll wear one everyday, weather permitting.
-
When I was a taxi driver I gave up picking up any young person sporting the thug/gangbanger look.
Just to many problems.
Where some of them simply nice kids? Probably but if you dress like a thug you'll be treated as one by folks who have been mistreated by thugs.
I had zero problems with young African American teens/men with belts around their waist, not around their knees. If you think I need to see your underwear, don't expect me to trust you ... white/black whatever.
-
I have a Mossy Oak hoody.
-
Boy, the race pimps are out in force on this one. They're all getting air time. I fully expect race riots over this one as the protests spread.
I've stated that this thing stinks, based off the available information. But I do not support lynching Zimmerman. He, just like us all, deserves a fair investigation and, if there is enough evidence against him, a fair trial.
With no witnesses, I really don't see him being convicted.
-
I don't think CS&D is advocating that wearing a hoodie justifies getting shot up anymore than a woman wearing provocative clothes justifies a sexual assualt. I think he is pointing out the tendency of folks to associate certain characteristics/mannerisms/dress styles with certain stereotypes. Just because the tendency exist doesn't make it right.
If a person dresses like a farmer it isn't out of place for people to think he might be a farmer. If a person dresses like a gangbanger ( and I don't know for sure that the kid was dressed like a gangbanger) some people are going to assume that they are a gangbanger. Don't make it right but it just is.
And, as far as banning hoodies is concerned, if they try to do that I'll wear one everyday, weather permitting.
True to a point, but looking like a thug isn't valid reason to chase dimensions down and confront them.
-
True to a point, but looking like a thug isn't valid reason to chase dimensions down and confront them.
??? Does it matter if their metric or english dimensions ...... [popcorn]
-
http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/911CallHistory.pdf
a real look at the types of calls zimmerman made
yet again reality differs from fantasy
-
??? Neighbor left garage door open....he called 911 for that? :facepalm:
BTW they forgot to black out Zimmerman's phone number on page 2. Jus' sayin'....... :police:
-
Calling the police over potholes, garage doors being open and stray dogs? How about a report on how many of those calls actually resulting in police action.
Yea the picture your painting is sure on reasonable guy. Not some dude on a strange lemme call 911 power trip who got tired of letting the professionals handle it and thought he knew better. Do you own any jeans C&D? I'd bet 100% of all crimes are committed by people wearing jeans, don't see to many booking photos of guys in slacks. Can we use jeans as in indicator of criminal activity? Follow around people randomly who wear jeans?
This hoodie thing is just silly now go to any high school during the fall or winter and count how many students are wearing hoodies I'd bet its almost half of them, advocating that a extremely common item of clothing is an indication of "thugishness" is stupid.
What about those army hoodies? Are the people that wear them thugs? Should I consider them criminals? They are proudly representing an "armed gang" that kills thousands of people a year!!! /s
>:D
-
Boy, the race pimps are out in force on this one. They're all getting air time. I fully expect race riots over this one as the protests spread.
Can someone provide a link to all this? I keep seeing these claims being made yet haven't seen a single article calling for Zimmerman to be lynched to people to start rioting.
The only example I can think of is people saying that if it was a black 260 lbs man that shot a white 140 lbs teenager, he would have been arrested already and people calling for him to be arrested. Is that what your talking about?
I'm pissed because it doesn't seem like the police did any investigation, they just took Zimmerman's word on what happened. It seems people are pissed about that and that's why there calling for him to be arrested. I do think they should take their time and build a case but a few things come to mind, the fact that he wasn't drug or alcohol tested (which I've been told is standard, if police can't force a person to do so after a self defense shooting then I retract it) no one from FL police called Trayvon's girl friend in three weeks even though it his cell phone shows he was on the phone with her at the time of the confrontation. Or how about just matching up who's voice it is screaming for help on the 911 tape, how long does it take to do so, its been what almost a month now and not a word on that?
Yes people are pissed, and I think rightfully so but I don't see anyone calling for race riots.
-
Calling the police over potholes, garage doors being open and stray dogs? How about a report on how many of those calls actually resulting in police action.
Do note that these calls go back to 2004 and several of the pages are for a single call.
Neighborhood watch ain't exactly glamorous. (FTR, I don't participate in our formal NW program. Too many irons in the fire, plus I do enough watching & calling on the weekends & evenings from my street corner working on the house, autos, etc.)
I make several calls for stray dogs alone per year. Our house has some sort of, "Hi, I'm a dog and I'm lost. I bet you'll take care of me and find my owners <wags tail>." magnetism going on.
But, my big thing is calling on stop sign runners. (I live on a corner, I can judge by ear if an auto is going to run the sucker or hammer the brakes at the last second.) If I can get the tag I call it in. I've probably called in more of those than Zimmerman made calls of all sorts since 2004. The only way to get police to come on out & do anything is be a pain in the tuckus and call in a whole lot. They'll plant a cop near the corner and he'll spend his shift reeling them in. The way I know my cop shop is not just a revenue generator but an actual peace-keeping organization is because they don't camp out there more often. Those tickets run $200 a pop and don't take long to write up. Open & shut case with dash cam.You'd think a stop sign inside a school zone in front of a school would get soem respect, but not hardly.
I'm pissed because it doesn't seem like the police did any investigation, they just took Zimmerman's word on what happened.
Just because Al Sharpton and the Chorus of Ignorance says so, don;t necessarily make it so.
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012
What Sanford Police investigators have in the folder, they put together on the killing of Trayvon Martin few know about.
The file now sits in the hands of the state attorney. Now that file is just weeks away from being opened to a grand jury.
It shows more now about why police believed that night that George Zimmerman shouldn't have gone to jail.
In my home state, EVERY homicide, no matter how unquestionably correct, goes to the grand jury. If you get no-billed, you can;t be sued civally or some such.
-
Can someone provide a link to all this? I keep seeing these claims being made yet haven't seen a single article calling for Zimmerman to be lynched to people to start rioting.
From http://www.theblaze.com/stories/farrakhan-tweets-where-there-is-no-justice-there-will-be-no-peace-law-of-retaliation-may-be-applied/
"Where there is no justice, there will be no peace. Soon the law of retaliation may very well be applied,” Farrakhan wrote, including the hashtag #Trayvon to clarify the subject of his angst. “Let us see what kind of justice will come for his bereaved family and our bereaved community,” he said in the previous social media message:
Or how about this one - little more directly threatening:
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/11778354-wanted-dead-or-alive-poster-issued-for-george-zimmerman-by-new-black-panther-party
Yesterday afternoon at a press conference, the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense circulated a “wanted dead or alive” poster for George Zimmerman for shooting to death a Florida teenager four weeks ago
-
Can someone provide a link to all this? I keep seeing these claims being made yet haven't seen a single article calling for Zimmerman to be lynched to people to start rioting.
The only example I can think of is people saying that if it was a black 260 lbs man that shot a white 140 lbs teenager, he would have been arrested already and people calling for him to be arrested. Is that what your talking about?
I'm pissed because it doesn't seem like the police did any investigation, they just took Zimmerman's word on what happened. It seems people are pissed about that and that's why there calling for him to be arrested. I do think they should take their time and build a case but a few things come to mind, the fact that he wasn't drug or alcohol tested (which I've been told is standard, if police can't force a person to do so after a self defense shooting then I retract it) no one from FL police called Trayvon's girl friend in three weeks even though it his cell phone shows he was on the phone with her at the time of the confrontation. Or how about just matching up who's voice it is screaming for help on the 911 tape, how long does it take to do so, its been what almost a month now and not a word on that?
Yes people are pissed, and I think rightfully so but I don't see anyone calling for race riots.
They never call for race riots. It always starts as peaceful protests.
Links not necessary. All it takes is to listen to the nearly non stop demands that he be arrested and convicted. Been seeing it on the news damn near daily.
-
They never call for race riots. It always starts as peaceful protests.
.
Like the Rodney King riots, I had friends at the San Francisco RK riot, they went there to protest & it quickly became an excuse to loot - by people totally unaffected by the King verdict - young white college grads on drugs who wanted a mob to loot with.
-
??? Neighbor left garage door open....he called 911 for that? :facepalm:
BTW they forgot to black out Zimmerman's phone number on page 2. Jus' sayin'....... :police:
are they all 911 calls? i think they write a report on non emergency calls too.
garage door open when it wouldn't normally be is the kinda stuff they taught to watch for.
i called once (non 911)when i saw a trunk open in the middle of the night in a subdivision. the idea of a watch is folks who live in a hood notice anything "off"
-
In my town we have been asked to call 911 for anything that might require a police officers attention in a timely manner. The non emergency number does not go to a dispatcher. Being an emergency is not required for calling 911 in my town.
The police here have a handout about ways of keeping your home safe and secure, it has boxes they check if they notice something that could be a concern. They noticed I left my garage open one night, checked that box and taped it to my door!
-
they were racist! call al sharpton
-
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-24/news/os-trayvon-martin-new-black-panthers-protest-20120324_1_black-men-justice-new-black-panthers
nice no violence here
-
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-24/news/os-trayvon-martin-new-black-panthers-protest-20120324_1_black-men-justice-new-black-panthers
nice no violence here
Sounds like incitement to commit kidnapping, murder and possibly a hate crime. Offering the 10k bounty to commit crimes must run afoul of state and fed laws don't ya think?
-
Looks like the Black Panthers have gone right past peaceful protests to conspiracy to commit at least kidnapping and possibly murder.
I'm guessing the DOJ is gonna look the other way again.
-
from the rally in dc?
"It is hypocritical to get mad when the white man kills me but not when a black man kills me"
-
Eh, this will likely get ugly. Would not be surprised if the reaction death toll is higher than the original incident.
If Zimmerman gets unlawfully detained or killed by New Black Panthers... Yep. Will be an interesting day
-
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-24/news/os-trayvon-martin-new-black-panthers-protest-20120324_1_black-men-justice-new-black-panthers
nice no violence here
Race pimps desperately searching for relevancy.
-
Eh, this will likely get ugly. Would not be surprised if the reaction death toll is higher than the original incident.
If Zimmerman gets unlawfully detained or killed by New Black Panthers... Yep. Will be an interesting day
The "new black panthers" would only detain a weak,disabled,elderly or toddler - they want someone else to do the hard work of taking on the guy with a gun-likely the ten grand would never be seen either.
-
Let me make perfectly clear that I think that Zimmerman should be indicted and tried. I'd like to see all the evidence presented and a jury decide his guilt or innocence. But in my mind there is at least enough to indict him for either murder or manslaughter.
-
Looking more & more like a bad plagiarizing of Bonfire of the Vanities as more data comes out.
It would be a shame if Zimmerman were indicted not because of damning evidence, but because of political pressure.
-
Let me make perfectly clear that I think that Zimmerman should be indicted and tried. I'd like to see all the evidence presented and a jury decide his guilt or innocence. But in my mind there is at least enough to indict him for either murder or manslaughter.
I concur, with the proviso that it is solely based on known information. Which is likely incomplete, as it comes from primarily media sources who are paid to lie about basically everything. But the general details are enough to warrant a proper investigation.
-
Meanwhile, a man with professional training in this field actually weighs in:
http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2012/03/23/george-zimmerman-and-trayvon-martin-what-we-dont-know/#comments
-
Thanks. Interesting.
Crazy that he says we don't have enough information yet. He should talk to De Selby.
-
Thanks. Interesting.
Crazy that he says we don't have enough information yet. He should talk to De Selby.
Yeah, probably a safe bet that I'm better at applying the law to cases than mas "no reloads" ayoob - but no need to speculate on who would be right - the grand jury will tell us soon.
-
Yeah, probably a safe bet that I'm better at applying the law to cases than mas "no reloads" ayoob - but no need to speculate on who would be right - the grand jury will tell us soon.
I would be careful about that bet.
Mas Ayoob has a well deserved and respected reputation around the world.
He deserves the recognition that he has, and it is not simply because he believes that he is a legend in his own mind.
How about we watch the thinly veiled personal attacks- Mods
-
I would not detect one bit from his stellar reputation as a law enforcement and self defence tactics expert - law is amdifferentnsotiry
-
Meanwhile, in Chi-town:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-03-19/news/chi-chicago-weekend-shootings-killings-violence-crime_1_shooting-victims-south-winchester-avenue-west-rogers-park
At least 10 people were killed, including a 6-year-old girl, in shootings over the weekend in Chicago.
The slain were among at least 49 people wounded in shootings from 5 p.m. Friday to 6 a.m. Monday, according to information compiled by the Chicago Tribune.
I am sure we'll see Sharpton & Crew leave Orlando and displace to Chicago, where they are killing black men, women, & children in wholesale lots.
<little bird whispers into my ear>
Oh, never mind. Those are just black folks killing black folks in Chicago and nobody gives a damn about that.
-
Reality check on murder in America, who are the victims and who are the perpetrators.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/294357/why-manipulate-tragedy-trayvon-martin-heather-mac-donald
-
Let's sum up what we think we know from piecing together various press reports . . .
George Zimmerman calls police about a suspicious person, follows him, and at some point gets out of his car to follow him. (Dumb, but not criminal at this point.) Trayvon Martin's girlfriend later comes forward and says she got a call from Martin saying that he was being followed.
<GAP>
Zimmerman claims to be walking away from Trayvon Martin when he's attacked - injuries consisted with this are noted. A witness claims he saw Zimmerman being pummeled by Martin, went inside to call police, and heard a gunshot. Looked out and saw Martin down and Zimmerman standing. Police said Zimmerman had "injuries" and the back of his shirt was wet, consistent with being on his back on wet grass.
WHAT HAPPENED IN THE GAP?
IF it can be shown that Zimmerman initiated violent contact, attacked Martin, tried to detain him, or something of the kind . . . he's legally toast. He had no authority to do that, and if he actually picked a fight with Martin, tried to grab him, or threatened him (actual threats or fighting words, not just a verbal exchange) justified self-defense with a firearm doesn't apply; claiming self defense if you begin losing a fight you started in the first place doesn't play well in court.
IF on the other hand Zimmerman didn't initiate violence, had actually had stopped following Martin at some point and was in fact walking away - trying to break contact - when attacked . . . I don't see a crime here.
If anyone KNOWS what happened in the gap - no guessing, no extrapolation, no assumption, no inferences, I'm looking for ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE of what happened in the gap, please share it.
I haven't seen anything definitive yet from any posts here, and I still find myself unable to reach an informed conclusion about what happened.
-
The Zimmerman case is confirming the worst of what we already knew--about Sharpton-Jackson, about Obama, about Spike Lee, about the New Black Panthers, and most especially about the terminal state of so many of our illusions about American culture and political "unity." We lost control of this game long ago, and most of us are just along the ride. And quite a ride it is, with the worst of it lying ahead. There are people in this nation dedicated to creating culture fractures and particularly a race war in America. They need to be called out, named, and ousted from what we like to call the "conversation." This is or should be a nation of laws. Let's try to stick to that track if it's still possible. Personally, I doubt it, and no election is going to change the fact that America has turned from a nation into a pop culture mob.
-
I would not detect {sic} one bit from his stellar reputation as a law enforcement and self defence tactics expert - law is amdifferentnsotiry{sic}
Huh? ? ? ? ? ?
-
Is it possible that this is nobody's fault? A confluence of both men doing the best they could with the information they had? (kid attacked Z because he thought Z was an armed stalker about to kill him, then Z shot in self defense)
-
WHAT HAPPENED IN THE GAP?
IF it can be shown that Zimmerman initiated violent contact, attacked Martin, tried to detain him, or something of the kind . . . he's legally toast. He had no authority to do that, and if he actually picked a fight with Martin, tried to grab him, or threatened him (actual threats or fighting words, not just a verbal exchange) justified self-defense with a firearm doesn't apply; claiming self defense if you begin losing a fight you started in the first place doesn't play well in court.
IF on the other hand Zimmerman didn't initiate violence, had actually had stopped following Martin at some point and was in fact walking away - trying to break contact - when attacked . . . I don't see a crime here.
If anyone KNOWS what happened in the gap - no guessing, no extrapolation, no assumption, no inferences, I'm looking for ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE of what happened in the gap, please share it.
I haven't seen anything definitive yet from any posts here, and I still find myself unable to reach an informed conclusion about what happened.
It really comes down to this. If it's #1, manslaughter. (and riots for it not being capital murder or whatever it is that would make "them" happy) If it's #2, no-bill. (riots)
With everyone agreeing Zimmerman was a dumbass to get things to this point, either way.
Either way though, I think SYG does not come into play whether it's #1 or #2. Basic Self-Defense if it's #2 , but I can't fathom anyone honestly claiming SYG applies after following someone by car and on foot through your neighborhood first.
-
Couple of things...
First, I am surprised by how many people find that wearing a hood up on a hooded sweatshirt makes one suspect. I don't know if it was raining or cool when this happened, but the simple act of wearing a hood up shouldn't equate suspicious activity, should it? I put up the hood of my coat when I walk the dog in the rain, does that make me suspicious?
Second, I recall reading somewhere that this was a neighborhood watch of one. He was his own neighborhood watch, and not a part of any formal organization. Does it matter? Don't know yet.
Third, much has been made...good and bad...about the background of both players in this event. Backgrounds are irrelevent, it is only the acts of the event which matter to the situation being self-defense or a homicide.
My concern in this whole thing is that the truth has become a victim of the circumstances, and as such we may never know that truth. For the louder the crowds yell, and the larger they get, the more likely it is that someone along the way will say "remember LA burning? We don't want that again/here." And, as such, to appease the masses, there will be an arrest, likely a trial, and then, who knows? But by appeasing the masses, is justice served? Is it a crime because the incident occured as speculated, or is it a crime because millions of people are talking about it and suddenly wearing hooded sweatshirts? We are a nation founded on the principal (at least in theory) that the majorty rules. And, if the majority watching Inside Edition decides that Mr. Neighborhood Watch is guilty, must it be that way, to preserve the peace?
I, for one, watch with keen interest how this plays out, and with hope to know the truth...
-
The Zimmerman case is confirming the worst of what we already knew--about Sharpton-Jackson, about Obama, about Spike Lee, about the New Black Panthers, and most especially about the terminal state of so many of our illusions about American culture and political "unity."
It's confirming the worst about others too. Now I'm seeing a picture floating around that people are claiming is the "real" Treyvon Martin. Some dumb kid dressed as a banger flipping the bird to the camera. No actual proof that it's him, and the picture is fuzzy enough that you really can't tell anything other than it's a young black guy. Somehow this is supposed to show he was a bad guy and shooting him was okay.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi34.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fd126%2Ftelehammer%2Fbadcat.jpg&hash=86b67f32b4e90a15c0006ae8a004540cb6b3674e)
I shamelessly stole this from a bicycling forum.
-
Huh? ? ? ? ? ?
Ah, my iPhone "helps" me in ways I don't expect.
Chris, don't be surprised - for some reason I do not understand, gun forums are teeming with reasons not to call this a bad shoot. Huge numbers of people outside gun forums are outraged by the facts. They seem to be concluding (not unreasonably, it seems) that trayvon's race played a role in him being John doe'd to the medical examiner, while the shooter went home with his gun.
The "options" that have Zimmerman going free if trayvon attacked him are fantasy - you'd need a 911 tape of trayvon reporting a suspicious person in a car and then chasing him down to get that.
My view, on the 911 tapes alone, it's going to be impossible for the shooter to make out a self defence claim. Witnesses that have him being mercilessly beaten on the head with a pack of skittles will only help reduce his sentence.
You have to wonder...was Zimmerman a member of any forums, and did he get any advice on them? The irony of Zimmerman commenting on some other case, like the OK pharmacist, won't stay out of the press long if he did.
Can we all imagine for a second, if the media gets on these forums, what they'll make of the comments about hoodies and the not-so-veiled "if the shoe fits" references to trayvon's appearance?
Theyd be right to point out that where we should be on the front foot in condemning irresponsible gun ownership, many of us are making excuses.
-
http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/was-trayvon-martin-a-drug-dealer
a glimpse into trayvons world
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2714778/thousands-expected-at-trayvon.html
-
Next week you will be able to buy your official Treyvon Martin Hoodieâ„¢ at Wal-Mart.
-
Next week you will be able to buy your official Treyvon Martin Hoodieâ„¢ at Wal-Mart.
Sabrina Fulton (Trayvon Martin's mother) is seeking trademarks to the phrases “I Am Trayvon” and “Justice for Trayvon”
BTW, you know how minor offenses from Zimmerman's past were dredged up? Well, it turns out Trayvon Martin received a 10 day suspension from school for "possession of an empty marijuana baggie." (An empty bag is an offense?)
MSNBC is reporting that evidence points to Zimmerman being attacked - not conclusive since it comes largely from Zimmerman, but it would appear to be at least partially corroborated by a witness . . . and if physical evidence is consistent with the account, it explains why Zimmerman hasn't been arrested yet.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/26/10868250-police-report-details-alleged-attack-on-zimmerman
I'm sure there are a lot of officials working hard to poke holes in Zimmerman's story - no doubt investigators are in full CSI-mode to try and develop something concrete, but with local, state, and Fed authorities involved, and politics weighing heavily on the investigation, actual evidence may get . . . muddled.
-
Chris, don't be surprised - for some reason I do not understand, gun forums are teeming with reasons not to call this a bad shoot.
Gun owners have open minds, and are willing to suspend judgment until they know more?
Huge numbers of people outside gun forums are outraged by the facts their perceptions about what actually happened. They seem to be concluding (based on preconceived views about Southern gun-owners) that trayvon's race played a role in him being John doe'd to the medical examiner, while the shooter went home with his gun.
Fixed that for you.
Huge numbers of people outside gun forums are also outraged by the automatic judgments against Zimmerman, and all the race-baiting. Are you unaware of that?
-
Ah, my iPhone "helps" me in ways I don't expect.
Chris, don't be surprised - for some reason I do not understand, gun forums are teeming with reasons not to call this a bad shoot. Huge numbers of people outside gun forums are outraged by the facts. They seem to be concluding (not unreasonably, it seems) that trayvon's race played a role in him being John doe'd to the medical examiner, while the shooter went home with his gun.
The "options" that have Zimmerman going free if trayvon attacked him are fantasy - you'd need a 911 tape of trayvon reporting a suspicious person in a car and then chasing him down to get that.
My view, on the 911 tapes alone, it's going to be impossible for the shooter to make out a self defence claim. Witnesses that have him being mercilessly beaten on the head with a pack of skittles will only help reduce his sentence.
You have to wonder...was Zimmerman a member of any forums, and did he get any advice on them? The irony of Zimmerman commenting on some other case, like the OK pharmacist, won't stay out of the press long if he did.
Can we all imagine for a second, if the media gets on these forums, what they'll make of the comments about hoodies and the not-so-veiled "if the shoe fits" references to trayvon's appearance?
Theyd be right to point out that where we should be on the front foot in condemning irresponsible gun ownership, many of us are making excuses.
Zimmerman strikes me as the sort of person who somehow magically "knows" how to handle everything without taking advice. In his mind he wears blue leotards with an "S" on the chest under his clothes.
As far as Zimmerman going "free" .....I am not counting the chickens before the eggs hatch.
He's atleast "guilty" of rotten judgement but I wonder what a good defense lawyer will make of the injury Zimmerman had and what some witnessses claim.
And don't misread me, DeSelby.....I think he's probably atleast wrong to the degree of manslaughter....but our courts HAVE done screwy things......
-
From this article, comes this little nugget....
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/26/10868250-police-report-details-alleged-attack-on-zimmerman
Meanwhile, Angela Corey, the special prosecutor, told ABC News that means "the state must go forward and be able to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. ... So it makes the case in general more difficult than a normal criminal case."
WHAT THE [CENSORED]???? Umm, excuse me Ms. Corey, that's the standard for ANY criminal case. Or are juries in FL instructed to convict just on "a preponderance of the evidence" or "if they feel like it" or "if the defendant *looks* guilty?"
-
Gun owners have open minds, and are willing to suspend judgment until they know more?
How ironic the de selby has already made up his mind, and then he calls others out who do not agree with him.
De selby's hypocrisy knows no bounds.
I also noticed that he is sucking up to Chris by insinuating that only lawyers can have valid opinions.
I wonder if he removes his clown shoes at bedtime.....
-
Actually Tommy, you do raise a good point - there's always jury nullification to consider. That could set him free.
I'm trying to imagine a realistic version of "the gap" in the tapes that would make zimmerman legally in the right, and I just can't see it. Being attacked by the kid he shot isn't going to do the trick; it would have to be so unreasonable as to be impossible, something along the lines of "oh, sorry trayvon, I thought you were someone else, I'm leaving now" and then getting attacked anyway.
Re your earlier comment, OJ was in a much stronger position. His jury was selected from a community that despised the LAPD and believed them capable of any amount of lying. So OJ basically got up and said "they .
-
why imagine? the scene as presented by zimmerman qualifies. he didn't attack. trayvon confronted him after feeling dissed and punched him out. that IS what a "made nigga" would do. nothing zimmerman's said has been contradicted by evidence or witness's. unless you count that twit crutcher
-
why imagine? the scene as presented by zimmerman qualifies. he didn't attack. trayvon confronted him after feeling dissed and punched him out. that IS what a "made nigga" would do. nothing zimmerman's said has been contradicted by evidence or witness's. unless you count that twit crutcher
Yeah, that's a homicide with no defence - trayvon had a right to defend himself from an oddly behaving stranger who chased him. You can't scare people into hitting you and then shoot them. That's the law in every state.
What Zimmerman said made out the crime - that's what I'm saying. You'd have to find highly improbable hidden evidence to undo it.
-
he was walking to his car when your boy jumped him. its hard to imagine i'm talking to a lawyer. or even harder to someone who lived where you have
-
he was walking to his car when your boy jumped him. its hard to imagine i'm talking to a lawyer. or even harder to someone who lived where you have
No, he says he was walking to his car from someone else's back yard after he proved on tape he was chasing the kid, who ran away from him.
Your problem is that you're ignoring the relevant facts - that trayvon hit him isn't what makes a defence claim. The whole chasing and "he's getting away!" incident before that made trayvon in the right to defend himself.
Ask your own lawyer about this one - the VA law won't be much different. See if you can get him to tell you that you would be safe if, after chasing someone who committed no crime, you shot him when that same guy turned and punched you.
-
what kinda law you actually practice?
if i was chasing someone i might be in dutch. walking back to my car? hes meat
are you really that "less aware" as to the culture amongst "urban youth? or being disingenuous? or just plain deceitful? asks the man with a black son and 3 black grand kids
-
From this article, comes this little nugget....
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/26/10868250-police-report-details-alleged-attack-on-zimmerman
WHAT THE [CENSORED]???? Umm, excuse me Ms. Corey, that's the standard for ANY criminal case. Or are juries in FL instructed to convict just on "a preponderance of the evidence" or "if they feel like it" or "if the defendant *looks* guilty?"
What!? You mean that civil cases require a lower standard of proof than a criminal case!?
No *expletive deleted*it, Sherlock. If she is that stupid (she is), it sounds like she has already begun her CYA for not getting a True Bill against Zimmerman.
I vote that she becomes the patsy if there is a No Bill.
She can deal with the fallout with her well practiced legal bob & weave.
Me thinks that she does not like her job very well right now! =D
-
what kinda law you actually practice?
if i was chasing someone i might be in dutch. walking back to my car? hes meat
are you really that "less aware" as to the culture amongst "urban youth? or being disingenuous? or just plain deceitful? asks the man with a black son and 3 black grand kids
It's that new law - you kind of make it up as you go.
You can actually get your degree online in 6 weeks, and then pass their Bar-None! =D
-
Meanwhile....does anyone know if there's a bounty on NBP members?....I need some extra cash.....
-
Meanwhile....does anyone know if there's a bounty on NBP members?....I need some extra cash.....
No, but I am aware of a bounty on Super Smartazzes.
I am waiting on an expected payment shortly.
Hey! Answer your doorbell - it's for you!! >:D
-
No, but I am aware of a bounty on Super Smartazzes.
I am waiting on an expected payment shortly.
Hey! Answer your doorbell - it's for you!! >:D
Ever dance with the Devil in the pale moonlight?.....I just like the way it sounds....
-
No, he says he was walking to his car from someone else's back yard after he proved on tape he was chasing the kid, who ran away from him.
Your problem is that you're ignoring the relevant facts - that trayvon hit him isn't what makes a defence claim. The whole chasing and "he's getting away!" incident before that made trayvon in the right to defend himself.
Ask your own lawyer about this one - the VA law won't be much different. See if you can get him to tell you that you would be safe if, after chasing someone who committed no crime, you shot him when that same guy turned and punched you.
Yep.
Also not sure how walking to his car indicates any significant backing down or abandoning the conflict, or how doing so could have reasonably communicated that to the other party.
-
Ouch, those links sure do put a different spin on Martin, not quite the pure as driven snow 13YO-looking child in the stories & photos. Still not enough to exonerate Zimmerman if he kept stepping on his johnson after stepping out of his auto.
IIRC, most of Miami's riots the last 30 years have been after an hispanic LEO shot a black perpetrator. Zimmerman being raised Jewish and with latin heritage won't stop the dumbazz rioting.
Still not enough data has been released to be sure, either way...though the trickle of data since the initial uproar has tended to favor Zimmerman.
-
define chase? then define follow?
-
Also not sure how walking to his car indicates any significant backing down or abandoning the conflict, or how doing so could have reasonably communicated that to the other party.
Really? That is kind of universal for, "I'm taking my marbles and going home." No need to break out a semaphore or bullhorn.
Leastways, that how it was when I was but a callow youth being chased by my betters after doing something I ought not to have.
-
Really? That is kind of universal for, "I'm taking my marbles and going home." No need to break out a semaphore or bullhorn.
Leastways, that how it was when I was but a callow youth being chased by my betters after doing something I ought not to have.
Except that it appears he may have been obviously followed Martin in his car earlier. If he used his car to stalk Martin, then got out and looked around on foot, then for some reason felt threatened, it would be quite reasonable to return to his car to continue his pursuit.
I don't think that walking back to a vehicle already used to follow a person earlier in the same incident necessarily indicates that the incident is at an end. It merely indicates another twist to the incident.
-
he was walking to his car when your boy jumped him.
This version of events doesn't have much more veracity than any other claim out there.
-
This version of events doesn't have much more veracity than any other claim out there.
Indeed.
Further, while some posters may have their perceptions colored by personal associations, I think those perceptions are marginal at best.
Ftr, I have passed by thousands or more young black men in hoodies, many of them a lot bigger than me, frequently at night, all too often in bad weather. Not one has ever behaved violently towards me. Obviously some young black guys in hoodies are criminals. But my personal experience is about 10,000:0 against any random black kid in a hoodie behaving violently towards me.
-
This version of events doesn't have much more veracity than any other claim out there.
Except this version of events isn't wild speculation, it's reportedly the version given by Zimmerman. Do you have evidence to contradict his claim?
-
define chase? then define follow?
Like I said, give these same facts to a VA attorney and see what he tells you. Let us know if you find one who says he'd bet on an acquittal.
The items released so far have done zero to reduce zimmermans odds of conviction. Whether trayvon behaved in school or smoked weed doesn't have anything to do with why Zimmerman shot him.
-
Except this version of events isn't wild speculation, it's reportedly the version given by Zimmerman. Do you have evidence to contradict his claim?
Yeah, there's a tape recording online where Zimmerman tells us in real time what he's doing. I'd say that carries a fair bit of weight.
-
Except this version of events isn't wild speculation, it's reportedly the version given by Zimmerman. Do you have evidence to contradict his claim?
I never said I did. Of course, that is what someone might likely claim if they were trying to stay out of trouble for making a horrible mistake.
However, Zimmerman will need to come up with pretty clear justification of his use of deadly force, as it appears that he will choose to mount an affirmative defense to any charges filed against him.
As Alluded to by BR, there is a lot of confirmation bias going regarding this case.
I agree with Mas on this one. There just isn't enough info to definitively indicate criminal culpability by either party.
At this point, I would only convict Zimmerman on multiple counts of felonious stupidity.
-
My nickle bet is Zimmerman doesn't get convicted for the shooting, makes a mint off his book.
Al Charlatan will continue to protest.
-
My nickle bet is Zimmerman doesn't get convicted for the shooting, makes a mint off his book.
Al Charlatan will continue to protest.
Guilty or innocent he may not be convicted locally but I doubt that will stop the DOJ from charging him and getting a conviction. About the only thing that will stop that is a new administration ... even that may not clear Zimmerman since this has become so politicized. I'd like to know how scary this kid looked if the only photos we get to see that we're sure are him are from 4-5 yrs ago. The photos are disingenuous and generally people don't disingenerate w/o reason ...
[popcorn]
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia2.myfoxorlando.com%2F%2Fphoto%2F2012%2F03%2F26%2FGEORGE_ZIMMERMAN_AND_TRAYVON_MARTIN_EDK_20120326143820_320_240.JPG&hash=0aa6cdf529a77a1f99bff35824befecd07f28c26)
Looks like our little sweetie's pictures are becoming less dated......
-
It wouldn't matter at this point if proof positive came to light that Treyvon was pointing an RPG at Zimmerman. He's going to be sent up for hard time. Not that he'll actually serve it unless they put him in solitary though. He has been convicted in the court of public opinion, game over.
-
It wouldn't matter at this point if proof positive came to light that Treyvon was pointing an RPG at Zimmerman. He's going to be sent up for hard time. Not that he'll actually serve it unless they put him in solitary though. He has been convicted in the court of public opinion, game over.
Yup. Zimmerman is completely screwed.
If he does avoid jail, I fear that he will succumb to 'an accident'.
If the SPD had thoroughly investigated the incident, Zimmerman would be standing on much firmer ground.
If this goes where I think that it will, he is going to be a poster child for a system and a society that has gone wrong.
-
My nickle bet is Zimmerman doesn't get convicted for the shooting, makes a mint off his book.
Al Charlatan will continue to protest.
Unless some actual evidence comes to light, if Zimmerman has competent counsel, I think you just may be right here . . . except Zimmerman will probably lose a civil case and get a big judgement entered against him. So any book proceeds will go to Martin's next of kin. (And their lawyers.)
And right now I've no idea what kind of case the DOJ might make against him . . .
-
Guilty or innocent he may not be convicted locally but I doubt that will stop the DOJ from charging him and getting a conviction.
Hope he gets a better deal than the LAPD officers in the Rodney King case.....
-
Unless some actual evidence comes to light, if Zimmerman has competent counsel, I think you just may be right here . . . except Zimmerman will probably lose a civil case and get a big judgement entered against him. So any book proceeds will go to Martin's next of kin. (And their lawyers.)
And right now I've no idea what kind of case the DOJ might make against him . . .
One of the most important aspects of castle doctrine and "stand your ground" laws is civil immunity in self-defense cases.
I don't know the Florida law in this respect, but that may very well be the case here.
-
It is entirely possible Martin was not a nice person.
But the law is not don't kill nice people.
If Martin was a drug dealer - indeed if his pockets were stuffed with heroin, and he had additional baggies full of crack cocaine strapped to his leg under his pants, and then carried half a pound of weed in a bag on a necklace - he'd still have to be physically, aggressively attacking Zimmerman for it to be self-defense.
-
It is entirely possible Martin was not a nice person.
But the law is not don't kill nice people.
If Martin was a drug dealer - indeed if his pockets were stuffed with heroin, and he had additional baggies full of crack cocaine strapped to his leg under his pants, and then carried half a pound of weed in a bag on a necklace - he'd still have to be physically, aggressively attacking Zimmerman for it to be self-defense.
Yes.
Those who are "supporting" Zimmerman (I would think most of us are withholding judgement, but apparently that means "supporting" him since we aren't calling for his head) are saying that his version of events is quite plausible.
It is entirely within the realm of possibilities that a hot-headed youth decided he was not treated with the proper respect and attacked Mr. Zimmerman. Until there is evidence to the contrary (not possible interpretations of a phone call which De Selby will be along shortly to claim is the absolute TRUTH!!111!), I'm willing to defer to the judgement of both the police department and the prosecutor.
-
I just don't see the police not arresting and charging Zimmerman without a very good reason. They don't seem to be backing down or justifying their decision not to arrest Zimmerman. Maybe I'm just a dupe, but I still think most Police depts are reasonably interested in doing the right thing and following the law.
It will all out in the end and we will know. Until then it is a pretty good mess.
-
Yes.
Those who are "supporting" Zimmerman (I would think most of us are withholding judgement, but apparently that means "supporting" him since we aren't calling for his head) are saying that his version of events is quite plausible.
It is entirely within the realm of possibilities that a hot-headed youth decided he was not treated with the proper respect and attacked Mr. Zimmerman. Until there is evidence to the contrary (not possible interpretations of a phone call which De Selby will be along shortly to claim is the absolute TRUTH!!111!), I'm willing to defer to the judgement of both the police department and the prosecutor.
Probably more accurate to explain that most of us are very, very cautiously giving him the benefit of doubt.
-
I just don't see the police not arresting and charging Zimmerman without a very good reason. They don't seem to be backing down or justifying their decision not to arrest Zimmerman. Maybe I'm just a dupe, but I still think most Police depts are reasonably interested in doing the right thing and following the law.
Trouble is the reason appears to lie in the stand-your-ground law's provisions regarding arrest in cases of claimed self-defense. I have not read this or seen direct cites, friend of mine mentioned it. Perhaps someone with direct knowledge can speak to this issue? (If it hasn't been addressed earlier in the thread)
-
Trouble is the reason appears to lie in the stand-your-ground law's provisions regarding arrest in cases of claimed self-defense. I have not read this or seen direct cites, friend of mine mentioned it. Perhaps someone with direct knowledge can speak to this issue? (If it hasn't been addressed earlier in the thread)
This is FL's "Stand Your Ground" 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.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
776.013 deals with the specifics of defense in your home or dwelling.
Your friend is probably refering to 776.032, which is part of our justifiable use of force laws, but not SYG:
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
Which as I recall was done because folks were getting punitivly tossed in jail for protecting themselves from lynchings. By the time the "investigation" was completed their homes were burned down, jobs lost and family run off.
-
This whole thing is just a white hot mess by this point. And the biggest problem is that the truth will never truly be known.
Zimmerman screwed up. I don't think anyone can argue otherwise. He was following Martin in his vehicle. He left his vehicle to pursue Martin on foot. How many times on this and other boards have we discussed not chasing the bad guy? We're not cops. Our job is to protect ourselves and our loved ones, not the neighbor's house.
The question is that by chasing Martin, does Zimmerman still get to claim the protections afforded for self-defense and such? If leaving his vehicle and starting the pursuit on foot takes away those legal protections, at what point in the process does he regain those protections? Is this parallel to a home invasion, where the bad guy cannot claim self-defense at any point because he's resposible for creating the chain of events by his act of breaking down the door in the first place? Or is this different in that there is a break in the chain of events that allows Zimmerman to regain those legal protections?
And, from the other side, let's assume Martin's side for a moment. You're just an individual rightfully walking down the street. Stranger is following in an old beater. He gets out of the car and pursues you on foot. You run. He chases. You stop running. He tries to grab you. What do you do? Everyone here on this board is going to fight. Many of us would continue the fight if the guy is headed back towards his vehicle. Why? He might have a weapon there. If he produces a gun, you're going to grab for it. I would think that if Zimmerman could claim the protections under "stand your ground", should nat Martin be able to make the sam eclaim when he's being followed then chased by a man with no legal authority to do so?
In a nutshell, we may have a situation where neither of these two is criminally culpable, but both may be morally culpable. now watch teh feds sweep in with a Civil Rights charge or something like that and throw my opinions out with the trash.
-
. . . let's assume Martin's side for a moment. You're just an individual rightfully walking down the street. Stranger is following in an old beater. He gets out of the car and pursues you on foot. You run. He chases. You stop running. He tries to grab you . . .
Hold it right there - I'm assuming this is a hypothetical, because WE DON"T KNOW if Zimmerman tried to grab Martin, or even how close he approached Martin.
I think most posters here (excepting DeSelby) recognize that there's a difference between following someone and assaulting or trying to unlawfully detain them. There's evidence of following (the 911 recording) but so far no evidence has been made public that Zimmerman actually initiated force against Martin. Even if Zimmerman said something to Martin, unless they were actual threats or fighting words, no law would have been broken. Now, Martin certainly could defend himself against an assault - which would be the case IF Zimmerman pushed him, hit him, or tried to grab him. But lacking a bona-fide threat, words alone (IF they had any - we don't know!!) would generally not justify initiating an assault of his own.
But we don't know what happened between the end of the 911 call and the eyewitness account of Martin beating on Zimmerman.
With all the attention, I'm willing to bet that law enforcement is trying to be rigorously exact in their investigation - and is probably trying very, very hard to make a case against Zimmerman in the hopes of forestalling riots and such by the usual suspects. Maybe it means something that they haven't succeeded yet, beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
Chris, I agree with most of what you say, except starting here:
He tries to grab you.
To the best of my knowledge, there is absolutely no evidence to support that Zimmerman caught up with Martin, or that he tried to grab Martin. Not on the 911 tapes, not from the statement from the girlfriend about her conversation with Martin, and to my knowledge that has not been brought up. I am NOT saying that Zimmerman's decision to follow (or chase, depending on what happened that night) Martin was a smart decision, nor a wise decision.
Currently, the media is beginning to report that the police report, or at least part of it, has been leaked. In said report, Zimmerman states that he was returning to his vehicle when he was approached from behind by Martin. The two exchanged words (unknown what was said, if any of it falls into the "fighting words" legal definition), at which point Martin punched Zimmerman once in the face, knocking him down, then got on top of him and began slamming his head into the ground. He also states that Martin tried to grab his gun. Quoting from Mas Ayoob's blog at http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2012/03/23/george-zimmerman-and-trayvon-martin-what-we-dont-know/ -
The death weapon was a Kel-Tec PF9 semiautomatic 9mm pistol. It has been reported that the gun was recovered with a full magazine and that only the chambered round had been fired. This is a condition we associate with something preventing the gun from cycling a fresh round from the magazine into the chamber after the shot was discharged. One thing that can cause that is another man’s hand wrapped around the pistol, retarding its slide mechanism. This would indicate, as could certain gunshot residue patterns or cuts in certain places if found on Trayvon Martin’s hand(s), that a struggle for a gun was taking place when the fatal shot was fired. This would clearly change the shape of the case. But – WE DON’T KNOW YET.
Now, the police have reported that what the Orlando Sentinel printed was consistent with their report of the investigation, and with the evidence they have passed on to the DA's office.
IF (again, we DON'T KNOW this yet) this was the actual series of events, then Zimmerman HAD disengaged from Martin, and was returning to his vehicle when he now was confronted by Martin. To me, this does not strike me as someone who was fearful for his safety. Martin had a phone. Why didn't he call 911 to report this strange dude following him around the neighborhood? To me, that is the reasonable course of action. Not returning and re-engaging the person you are allegedly afraid of. Again, we don't know what words were exchanged during this second encounter. But again, if these are the facts of the case, then Martin was the one who took the event from a verbal altercation to physical assault by punching Zimmerman. Other than a very specific set of "fighting words" a verbal altercation DOES NOT justify a physical assault. If he then got on top of Zimmerman and was slamming his head into the sidewalk, then Zimmerman did indeed have a reasonable fear for his life. And at that point Stand Your Ground is immaterial. He doesn't have an option to retreat, as he has his assailant on top of him.
-
everything zimmermans claimed so far has not been contradicted by witness or evidence. now lil martins boosters? can claim no veracity
-
everything zimmermans claimed so far has not been contradicted by witness or evidence. now lil martins boosters? can claim no veracity
This. I'm actually swinging around on my view on it as more has come out in the shuffle.
I'm still not a fan of Zimmerman's actions. He put himself in the situation by pursuing Martin. Martin had not commited any crime that Zimmerman had witnessed.
In the end, its highly possible that Zimmerman's account is accurate. But while he may have a very shaky legal high ground, I still don't believe he has the moral high ground in this shooting.
The fix, however, is in. The race pimps and the DOJ will make sure he is either convicted of a hate crime, sued penniless in civil court, or if the NBP has their way....Killed.
Justice will not be served, only mob rule.
-
The critical facts aren't known yet.
What we do know is that this is becoming a circus populated by the usual freaks, gawkers, and hustlers, including those protected by the aegis of official power.
We're also learning that Trayvon might not have been the saintly youth initially depicted.
As for "accidents" we seem to be moving into an era of tragic "accidents." One begets another. This is what happens when reason sleeps.
-
This. I'm actually swinging around on my view on it as more has come out in the shuffle.
I'm still not a fan of Zimmerman's actions. He put himself in the situation by pursuing Martin. Martin had not commited any crime that Zimmerman had witnessed.
In the end, its highly possible that Zimmerman's account is accurate. But while he may have a very shaky legal high ground, I still don't believe he has the moral high ground in this shooting.
The fix, however, is in. The race pimps and the DOJ will make sure he is either convicted of a hate crime, sued penniless in civil court, or if the NBP has their way....Killed.
Justice will not be served, only mob rule.
Yea, I have been in this camp.
Sadly, any pro-Martin witnesses or statements that miraculously appear at this point will be coached.
It will be easy to tell if the coach was Sharpton if they state that they were axed a question.
-
The critical facts aren't known yet.
What we do know is that this is becoming a circus populated by the usual freaks, gawkers, and hustlers, including those protected by the aegis of official power.
We're also learning that Trayvon might not have been the saintly youth initially depicted.
As for "accidents" we seem to be moving into an era of tragic "accidents." One begets another. This is what happens when reason sleeps.
I would say that they police and presecutor know a lot of critical facts, but haven't been too sharing. That is what leads to me think there isn't much evidence that supports wrong doing on the part of Zimmerman.
-
I would say that they police and presecutor know a lot of critical facts, but haven't been too sharing. That is what leads to me think there isn't much evidence that supports wrong doing on the part of Zimmerman.
bingo
i also think thats this is a case where just because somethings legal it doesn't make it smart
-
bingo
i also think thats this is a case where just because somethings legal it doesn't make it smart
WE HAVE A WINNER!
-
I would say that they police and presecutor know a lot of critical facts, but haven't been too sharing. That is what leads to me think there isn't much evidence that supports wrong doing on the part of Zimmerman.
bingo
i also think thats this is a case where just because somethings legal it doesn't make it smart
This, with bells on it.
-
Perhaps if the police investigation determined that Z is not guilty (not quite the same thing as innocent, but it's good enough) but we have all this political pressure from the usual race-baiters, the best path to justice is have the prosecutor encourage a grand jury to not indict.
-
I would say that they police and presecutor know a lot of critical facts, but haven't been too sharing. That is what leads to me think there isn't much evidence that supports wrong doing on the part of Zimmerman.
Yes, I meant by US.
-
bingo
i also think thats this is a case where just because somethings legal it doesn't make it smart
Very nice, CSD. That is almost poetic!
-
I would say that they police and presecutor know a lot of critical facts, but haven't been too sharing. That is what leads to me think there isn't much evidence that supports wrong doing on the part of Zimmerman.
Well, they are investigating now - but the Sanford PD didn't send a homicide detective, didn't call the person trayvon was talking to at the time of the shooting, didn't drug test Zimmerman, and didn't even bother looking into the victim's phone to see who he was on the night.
Small wonder they didn't have much evidence.
Federal charges aren't realistic in this case. State charges are a near certainty. Of course, when he's convicted, we'll all just claim it was a railroading to dismiss the fact that he obviously broke the law.
-
Frickin' A, Selby. I've seriously had it with you bloviating and opining as if you're judge and jury for Zimmerman. WE DON'T [CENSORED] KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. Thank God I don't have you for a lawyer, I'd be sent to the electric chair for a traffic ticket!
WHAT LAW DID HE OBVIOUSLY BREAK????
Seriously. Name it. Felony following? Aggravated chasing? Following with intention to inquire??? WHAT EXACTLY did he do that makes it so he OBVIOUSLY broke the law, oh great and all knowing De Selby????
Provide one bit of actual evidence that he broke the law, and I'll apologize right here... But I have a feeling that you won't be able to find one, because, oh wait, NONE OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN PUBLICLY RELEASED! Yes, some of the 911 tapes have been released. But to my knowledge, not a single one of them indicates that Zimmerman actually broke the law. All we have is inference and assumption based on some of the 911 tapes and very limited (and frankly biased) reporting in the media.
ETA: Mods, sorry if I'm attacking De Selby here, but in my opinion he's gotten to be as bad as Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, condemning the man when we simply don't know what happened.
-
- photo confirmed NOT Trayvon Martin -
-
Ron, the lower photo of Trayvon Martin is apparently not the Trayvon Martin that was shot by Zimmerman. Michele Malkin has pulled it from her site with an apology for the mistake and to the Martin family.
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/560506_10150648481057713_636502712_9212714_1193326169_n.jpg)
This is also an example of confirmation bias on some people's part, as the picture of the guy flipping off the camera is not the Tayvon Martin in this case.
-
......Of course, when he's convicted, we'll all just claim it was a railroading to dismiss the fact that he obviously broke the law.
Let's not count the chickens before they're hatched DeSelby. If Zimmerman is tried and found guilty of a reasonable charge (by which I mean 1st degree murder would be a gross overcharge) then I don't think most people will claim it's railroading.
I still think this is a prime example of a case in which an American court has a better than average chance of fumbling in the endzone though......
-
What law did he break? Try this one: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html)
(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Chasing people while armed for no reason? Yeah, Shouldn't be too hard to see how that's a depraved mind.
There's this if you're more favorable to people running after you while armed during your evening strolls: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.07.html (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.07.html)(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
I don't see anyone agreeing that chasing trayvon was something reasonable under the circumstances - knowing that it could lead to armed confrontation, he did it anyway. If the prosecutor can't make the case for that being culpable negligence under the circumstances, I'd be shocked.
-
Hey guys, sorry for the delayin responding. Workand lawn mmowing got in the way. To answer a couple of questions... I was creating hypotheticals earlier based on the information I had. Please don't jump me if that info is wrong. Regrettably, muchof it came from the talking heads on TV. Best info I have which isn't saying much.
One thing I take from all of this, and we all should...don't be like Zimmerman. He was wrong to leave his car. He was wrong to use a racial slur (if he reaaly did) while on the phone with 911. He was wrong to follow the kidon foot. He put himself in a position where he needed to use his weapon, and he had no reason at all to put himself in that position. Charged or not, convicted or not, bznkrupted or not, he madebad choices that put him in this posiition.
May we all make better choices.
-
Police now saying the evidence is consistent with Zimmerman's version of events-
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/27/police-zimmerman-story-is-consistent-with-evidence-in-trayvon-martin-shooting/
Frankly at this point, with what little we know, I think Zimmerman's an idiot. A big freaking idiot. I think he did a lot wrong in this case.
He shouldn't have followed the kid. He should have called the cops and left it at that. But that said, being an idiot doesn't make you a murderer. Following someone suspicious in your neighborhood, while a might stupid in this case, doesn't make you a murderer if they jump you.
Idiot? Yes, big yes. Murderer? Not looking like it and if it was clear cut enough I think he'd already be in cuffs. It's a big if and of course based solely on the evidence they actually have, but if anything they might be able to go for manslaughter. But I'm leaning towards a big if.
-
Sorry De Selby, but following someone, even chasing someone, whether you are armed or not, is not "an act imminently dangerous to another."
Furthermore, you're twisting the law around to try to fit your preconceived notions. For that law to apply, the act that causes the unlawful killing must be the imminently dangerous act. So if Martin had keeled over and died from being chased, then yes, that law would apply. And that law specifically states "the unlawful killing." Killing someone in self defense is not an unlawful killing.
Now let's look at the second statute you quoted....
The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Let's walk through that, shall we? Hrm... "Without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776".... Wait. Would self defense be lawful justification??? Oh my, it looks like chapter 776 is exactly that, Justifiable Use of Force! Hrm. Let's see what all is in there, shall we??? Oh lookie... 776.012 - Use of force in defense of person. 776.032 - Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.
Oh, here's a good one....
776.041 - Use of force by aggressor. Shall we see what Florida has to say about this??? Even if Zimmerman was the "aggressor"?
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—
The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
Ok. #1 doesn't apply. Zimmerman was not attempting to commit, committing or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony. Strike 1.
#2 - "Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself." - Hmm.. could it be... Maybe *that's* the law you were thinking he broke.... But wait. there's more to be read-
"UNLESS" (my, that's an important word in this case)
"(a) - such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm" yeah, getting punched to the ground and then having your head slammed into the cement sidewalk would fit that definition "and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;" Whoopsie. Zimmerman was under Martin, having his head pounded into the cement. I don't see any reasonable means to escape that danger.... Strike 2.
"or (b) - In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force." Let's see. Zimmerman stopped following/chasing Martin. He's walking back to his car. Yup. Withdrew from physical contact... Oh wait. THERE HADN'T EVEN BEEN ANY PHYSICAL CONTACT YET! According to his statement to police, after he started walking back to his car, this exchange occurred:
Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words.
Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose, according to the account he gave police.
from http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager
Wait, what's this? "Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose" oh no! "and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force." Strike 3, and you're out!
Oh, but guess what, I'm not done yet! "and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide"
Gee, I wonder what fits the definition of excusable homicide??? Oh, that's right, SELF DEFENSE!
Guess again, Counselor.
-
[popcorn]
I have had fun conveying facts to some friends off in England. The versions they get are even more distorted than our own papers. Their own anti gun establishment is really quite keen on playing up the wild west america racist stereotypes.
-
Easy, Ambulance Driver. Revenge, like crow, is a dish best served cold! =D
You are wasting your breath on deaf ears with that one.
I find his words to be very educational, though.
If the time ever arises that I need a lawyer, I know exactly what not to look for..... =D
Any self-inflating gasbag will be quickly removed from the list.....
-
It's only been about a month since the shooting. One of Oklahoma's first SYG shootings took over 3 months before the Tulsa DA charged the shooter.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070928_1__Areti32253 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070928_1__Areti32253)
That story was also tried in the media and Gumm was vilified in the press until the POS DA finally charged him.
He eventually ended with a plea bargain that kept him out of jail after the tile crawlers and the system bled him dry. It didn't make the big time because neither party was a member of an oppressed social class.
What gets me about this whole Florida mess is that essentially it is a local issue that is being blown all the hell out of proportion by the race pimps and anti-gun left. The backlash from this is going to be detrimental to the 2A and the effects are going to be long lasting.
Never let a crisis go to waste.
-
This. I'm actually swinging around on my view on it as more has come out in the shuffle.
I'm still not a fan of Zimmerman's actions. He put himself in the situation by pursuing Martin. Martin had not commited any crime that Zimmerman had witnessed.
In the end, its highly possible that Zimmerman's account is accurate. But while he may have a very shaky legal high ground, I still don't believe he has the moral high ground in this shooting.
The fix, however, is in. The race pimps and the DOJ will make sure he is either convicted of a hate crime, sued penniless in civil court, or if the NBP has their way....Killed.
Justice will not be served, only mob rule.
Gotta agree - the initial info reported (what little there was) looked VERY bad for Zimmerman, IMO. As more came out, it looked worse for Martin than Zimmerman. Not that Zimmerman's position improved much, mind. If he'd just stayed in the car, I doubt any of this would ever have happened. But Martin is... something less than the "angel" initially portrayed by family and supporters, and the recently-released facts of the encounter and events leading up to the shooting resemble Zimmerman's account far more than those related by Martin's supporters.
I wanted more info to decide what was going on, and now that I've gotten it, it looks a lot less like Zimmerman was out to murder a black teenager out of racism than initially reported. He was still freaking stupid for starting the whole chain of events, and I'd say odds are at least 50/50 that he'll hang for it (metaphorically, or perhaps literally if he's really unlucky).
-
I said it earlier, looks like a couple of wannabee tough guys got a chance to meet each other. Unfortunately one of them was carrying a gun.
If he gets convicted of manslaughter or a lesser degree of murder I hope it is made clear the circumstances didn't meet the standard of "stand your ground".
-
i wonder if this will result in changing how 911 operators handle this type of call? if she had insisted that zimmerman wait by the mailboxes (or other specified location) it would have terminated his pursuit of martin.
-
i wonder if this will result in changing how 911 operators handle this type of call? if she had insisted that zimmerman wait by the mailboxes (or other specified location) it would have terminated his pursuit of martin.
Why would that have mattered when 911 operators have no authority?
Stay in the card or follow on foot, keeping his distance would have been good if possible.
-
If you want to fix 911, put a 2 way bullshiite filter on the line.
-
What i've learned from this is:
If one moron kills another moron while both morons are doing moronic things, it's only a "problem" in america if the dead one is black.
-
much truth!! ^^^
-
where as this is meh
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-04/news/31122324_1_white-boy-fire-tv-station
and notice how this outlet doesn't mention he was lit up for being a "white boy" curious that
i'm waiting for slimfast al and the reverend pay to play to fly in and do their magic
-
or for deselby to set the record straight. gonna make a samich while i wait
-
or for deselby to set the record straight. gonna make a samich while i wait
Gonna be a hell of a sammich :lol:
And I'm waiting for Obama to come out and say that if he had a son he would look just like the perpetrators ... =|
-
more reality that fails to conform with deslby's imagination
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=23e_1332772669
-
And just in case I didn't make myself clear, I DO NOT think that Zimmerman was prudent in getting out of his car. Or following Martin.
But you know what, I can actually understand why he did it.
Let's see. You're on the neighborhood watch and you happen to be driving down the road when you see someone who you don't recognize as living in the neighborhood. Not only that, but they are walking in an area of your neighborhood that has had repeated break-ins.
How many of us wouldn't at least roll down the window and ask, hey, my name is AmbulanceDriver, and I'm part of the neighborhood watch around here... We've had a lot of break ins in the area, and I didn't recognize you as living here.... Mind telling me where you live, or who you're staying with? (Keeping in mind this is a GATED community, so not a lot of just random foot traffic.)
And if he kept walking away as we were following behind him, how many of us wouldn't call 911?
And if he took off on foot in between houses, etc...How many of us wouldn't try to at least keep an eye on him? And maybe get out of the car to try to see where he went?
How many of us would maybe go walking up to where he disappeared, trying to see if we can figure out where he went?
Hindsight is always 20/20. Knowing what the end result of this chain of events was, of course we wouldn't get out of the car, we wouldn't go following him, yadayadayada.
But we don't have the gift of foreseeing the future. We make decisions based on the information we have at hand at the moment we have to make the decision. I can absolutely guarantee you that if Zimmerman thought following Martin would end up where we are right now, he would have sat in his car in one spot and just been a good witness...
But sadly, he didn't and couldn't know what the chain of events would be.
And so now, Martin is buried, his family is out for "justice". Zimmerman is hiding from the angry mob that has now formed....
And the rest of us wait, and worry, and wonder what would ever happen if we are ever forced to defend ourselves, and our attacker has different colored skin than we do.
Do we need to worry about the full weight of the United States Gov't coming down on us trying to find some way to pin us down? Do we need to worry about Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson calling for our arrest? Do we need to worry that our home may be attacked, or even destroyed, by an angry mob? Do we need to worry that we may be hunted down by the New Black Panther party, with a "bounty" placed on our heads, and "wanted dead or alive" posters plastered up everywhere?
I posted a long rant on FB about this.
Ultimately, we need Justice.
Not Justice for Martin. Not Justice for Zimmerman. Simply Justice. The law must look on the facts of the case with impartiality as to what race the alleged victim and the alleged attacker are.
-
i wonder if this will result in changing how 911 operators handle this type of call? if she had insisted that zimmerman wait by the mailboxes (or other specified location) it would have terminated his pursuit of martin.
Our 911 center has a policy that if the caller is following the suspect, they warn the caller that they either need to stop following and wait for police, or they are going to disconnect the call.
Most people stop following. A few get hung up on and then call back.
The risk in this policy is that what if something bad happens to the caller after the dispatcher hangs up on them?
But no, 911 dispatchers are not law enforcement (in most cases). Their instructions carry no weight of law behind them.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/28/elderly-couple-forced-out-home-after-tweet-claims-killer-trayvon-miller-lives/#ixzz1qONII6KM?test=latestnews
more responsible behavior
-
No, don't you understand? It's not racism or harassment if the perpetrators are black
-
No, don't you understand? It's not racism or harassment if the perpetrators are black
in a doubly ironic twist its not been black folks that take that position as much as it is white folks. and usually white folk who live in all white hoods, send their kids too private schools etc
-
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/28/elderly-couple-forced-out-home-after-tweet-claims-killer-trayvon-miller-lives/#ixzz1qONII6KM?test=latestnews
more responsible behavior
They should get a couple of heavily-armed skinheads to housesit while they are out. The skinheads would probably pay THEM for the opportunity. [ar15]
-
The tweets were traced back to a man in California and the address was also reportedly retweeted by director Spike Lee to his almost 250,000 followers.
Does this couple have a case against Spike Lee?
-
Does this couple have a case against Spike Lee?
IMO, yeah. I heard he hasn't retracted it when it is becoming common knowledge the information is false. However, it depends on what actual damages there are.
-
US Representative wears a hoodie while speaking on the floor of the House.
Booby Rush from IL (http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/03/28/bobby-rush-dons-hoodie-house-floor/)
-
US Representative wears a hoodie while speaking on the floor of the House.
Booby Rush from IL (http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/03/28/bobby-rush-dons-hoodie-house-floor/)
Did you mean to make that typo in his name? :laugh:
-
Did you mean to make that typo in his name? :laugh:
Typing too fast at work. :laugh: :laugh: I like it and will leave it.
-
Why would that have mattered when 911 operators have no authority?
Stay in the card or follow on foot, keeping his distance would have been good if possible.
sometimes all it takes is a sggestion.
-
Just finished reading through this whole thread.
Honestly, I initially - with the limited and biased information I had - felt the shooting was unjustified. I don't think I'm in that camp any longer.
If Zimmerman attempted to lay hands on Martin, I could see the justification for Martin to respond with force sufficient to inflict the injuries sustained by Zimmerman. I am unaware of any indication that this took place. If Zimmerman did not attempt to touch Martin in any way, I do not see how any of Zimmerman's other claimed, known or likely actions (following in a vehicle, following on foot, verbally challenging, calling a police non-emergency number, etc.) would justify a violent response from Martin. It's hard to say whether deadly force was called for after the beating commenced, but getting one's head bashed into concrete or a weapon being wrestled over could justify such a shoot.
In short, I agree with the "wait for evidence" crowd, and am confused by the "Justice for Travon" crowd.
Some other thoughts:
1. I have only called the police twice in my life. Once to report a girl getting shoved into a car and once because a bunch of kids were shooting at each other in front of my house. You know, valid reasons. That said, folks trying to use "OMG, he like called the cops a lot!!11!" as reason to label him mentally unstable are uninformed. My best friend is a cop and when I've done ride-alongs with him, guess what he tells folks? "If you see anything unusual or suspicious that you just want us to check out, don't hesitate to call the non-emergency number. If it's urgent, call 911." I can completely understand someone who spends time looking around his neighborhood for bad things to call the non-emergency number a lot.
2. Following Martin on foot was inadvisable and I wouldn't do it, but I don't see it as the bloody glove that De Selby seems to.
3. This case is no longer about Martin and Zimmerman and hasn't been since people decided to be outraged about the race of the participants. You know, the evil white hispanic guy and the black choir boy.
-
I agree with you cordex, except that early on I was just confused why so many people were looking to throw Zimmerman under the bus just due to over analyzing 911 tapes that really didn't tell you what happened.
-
IMO, yeah. I heard he hasn't retracted it when it is becoming common knowledge the information is false. However, it depends on what actual damages there are.
The couple have hired an attorney:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/28/justice/florida-teen-spike-lee/index.html
The McClains have hired Orlando attorney John Morgan, who said they might have a civil claim against Lee. "Fortunately, this couple is not about that right now."
-
http://www.thenewblackmagazine.com/view.aspx?index=537
a point of view
-
Only a few things are clear to me:
The usual suspects are taking their pleasure (and profit) from the usual strokes.
In the end, very few of those who gain will deserve their gain, very few of those who lose will deserve their loss.
A remark about waiting for the DVD so I can pause, rewind, slo-mo, and single frame fell apart with the realization that the credits for production, direction, scripting, dialog coaching, costuming, makeup, etc. may well have more meaning than the content.
I am grateful all my friends and family live well outside the riot zones should Zimmerman not be punished to the satisfaction of the riot prone. (As a trucker delivering to some vulnerable spots, I will pay close attention to events at appropriate times, as, I am sure, will our dispatchers.)
-
In short, I agree with the "wait for evidence" crowd, and am confused by the "Justice for Travon" crowd.
"Wait for evidence" is the only sensible crowd, though as I said earlier in the thread there was a strong suggestion - at least according to the reports that had been circulated - that the initial investigation had not got to the stage where they were emphatically able to say (and more importantly demonstrate) what had happened, and questions still (at least in public) remain about what Zimmerman did that night. I do think that the family of Martin are entitled to have an effective investigation into his death, one would hope that the grand jury will get to the bottom of things in an open and honest way.
Also, whilst we are talking about self-defence issues, perhaps some of you will be interested in this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9169449/Coroner-rules-father-used-justified-force-to-kill-burglar.html
-
Wow, what a thread. Now, to address all the foaming at the mouth about legal standards here - the statute set by courts everywhere including Florida for initial aggressors to withdraw is insanely high. It will not work to say "I stopped running" when chasing someone. You only regain your right to self defence with actions so blatant as going home and sleeping the night, or getting down on your knees and begging for mercy. The defence is not available if you were wrestling, or simply moving a new direction after you gave chase.. Then there's that phone witness who says the words were "what are you doing here?" from Zimmemrman. Considering he's the one who shot somebody, he'll have a hard time showing the jury that's not credible. But it wouldn't matter if his statement was taken as true - the bar for withdrawal is much, much higher than simply ending your run.
Also, as I said to CSD - anyone who doubts it, give these facts to a lawyer you trust and ask him if he'd say you're in the clear to do that. Feel free to come on here and demonstrate what a "real lawyer" tells you about this scenario under your own state's law.
-
Wow, what a thread. Now, to address all the foaming at the mouth about legal standards here - the statute set by courts everywhere including Florida for initial aggressors to withdraw is insanely high. It will not work to say "I stopped running" when chasing someone.
You have yet to demonstrate that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor.
Running toward someone and/or asking them what they are doing are not in and of themselves sufficient cause to respond with force.
-
Also, as I said to CSD - anyone who doubts it, give these facts to a lawyer you trust and ask him if he'd say you're in the clear to do that. Feel free to come on here and demonstrate what a "real lawyer" tells you about this scenario under your own state's law.
A real lawyer's opinion at this point carries no more weight than any other opinion.
Get over yourself.
-
To be an aggressor per the Florida statute requires physical contact... As I pointed out earlier.
-
To be an aggressor per the Florida statute requires physical contact... As I pointed out earlier.
Yeah, that contention was totally and completely wrong - unambiguously so, for anyone living in FL. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but we have members in FL on this thread and I would strongly urge them all, whatever their opinion of de Selby, not to consider it an accurate statement of FL self defence law.
-
You have yet to demonstrate that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor.
Running toward someone and/or asking them what they are doing are not in and of themselves sufficient cause to respond with force.
Okay, listen to the 911 tapes - Zimmerman chased after the kid ran away. Isn't it reasonable to think people who run away from you are scared of what you might do to them?
-
13 pages of noise stops here.
Chris