Trayvon Martin's Family Calls For Arrest Of Man Who Confessed To Shooting [Archive] - Page 2 - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Trayvon Martin's Family Calls For Arrest Of Man Who Confessed To Shooting


Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6

ATW525
03-20-2012, 07:56
Trayvon Martin was on the phone:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-death-friend-phone-teen-death-recounts/story?id=15959017#.T2iINJtN_Sg

ATW525
03-20-2012, 08:22
Trayvon Martin's hometown Sen., Oscar Braynon, calls for hearings into Stand Your Ground law:

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/03/trayvon-martins-hometown-sen-oscar-braynon-calls-for-hearings-into-stand-your-ground-law.html

This is somewhat important for Floridians, since it's someone who is in a position to potentially initiate changes to Florida law.

jhon
03-20-2012, 08:24
Zimmerman was not part of a registered National Neighborhood Watch program, which police were not aware of at the time of the incident.

Follow the rest of the story on Good morning America.

http://gma.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-killing-friend-phone-teen-death-recounts-063243901--abc-news.html

This shows for now a whole new point of view with still more to come out during the DOJ and FBI investigations.

PS: This is similar to what ATW525 posted, but he has a video where this here is text only.

mrsurfboard
03-20-2012, 08:33
Zimmerman is the poster child for anyone who opposes CC laws. Armed, police wannabe, who took the law into his own hands and killed a more then likely innocent young man. It will not end well for him and the antis will capitalize on this when they fight nationwide carry in the Senate.

Gallium
03-20-2012, 08:35
oh really , what the law on that? care to explain ? I think DUI cases typically have some limits and just having alcohol in your system is against the law.

...


Are you asking a question?

Someone (who I quoted) said if he were intoxicated or not would be irrelevant to the shooting.

I responded that early reports indicated he was the driver of the SUV.

If he was intoxicated, it would hardly be irrelevant because

1) It is already unlawful to operate a motor vehicle if intoxicated

2) If his judgement is impaired to operate a motor vehicle, said judgement would be called into question over the shooting.


Please let me know what parts of that don't make sense to you.

s. 316.193, F.S.


-G

cgjane
03-20-2012, 08:40
The people who really know the probable answer aren't being heard as they know what type of person the deceased was. You & I don't. Was he a thug wannabe? Hot headed? Was he an honors student?

I say this as I lived in a city where an incident similar to this happened and I knew the deceased. He was a total POS but from the TV interviews and the newspaper after the incident you would have thought he rescued babies from burning buildings. :upeyes:

We don't have all the facts. :wavey:

The kid was unarmed. Fact.

Wouldn't you turn into a fighter if you walked to the store to buy snacks, and on the way home a man starts following you and produces a weapon?

This is what happened to the poor kid. A kid, an unarmed kid.

Trayvon Martin's hometown Sen., Oscar Braynon, calls for hearings into Stand Your Ground law:

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/03/trayvon-martins-hometown-sen-oscar-braynon-calls-for-hearings-into-stand-your-ground-law.html

This is somewhat important for Floridians, since it's someone who is in a position to potentially initiate changes to Florida law.

The law will be repealed for us sane law abiding citizens because of one FOOL of an IDIOT MALL NINJA WANNABE COP. Hope ZMan burns.

RussP
03-20-2012, 09:35
Zimmerman was not part of a registered National Neighborhood Watch program, which police were not aware of at the time of the incident.

Follow the rest of the story on Good morning America.

http://gma.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-killing-friend-phone-teen-death-recounts-063243901--abc-news.html

This shows for now a whole new point of view with still more to come out during the DOJ and FBI investigations.

PS: This is similar to what ATW525 posted, but he has a video where this here is text only.From that link...According to Chris Tutko, the director of the National Neighborhood Watch program, there are about 22,000 registered watch groups nationwide, and Zimmerman was not part of a registered group, which police were not aware of at the time of the incident.There was also an earlier story that the Neighborhood Watch program was only started two months before the shooting.

The attached image is a Google earth street view of one of the entrances. Note the Imagery Date of 4/2011, the sign at the entrance on that date. That entrance sign looks like the image I inserted.

Another discrepancy?

mrsurfboard
03-20-2012, 09:36
The kid was unarmed. Fact.

Wouldn't you turn into a fighter if you walked to the store to buy snacks, and on the way home a man starts following you and produces a weapon?

This is what happened to the poor kid. A kid, an unarmed kid.



The law will be repealed for us sane law abiding citizens because of one FOOL of an IDIOT MALL NINJA WANNABE COP. Hope ZMan burns.

:agree:

jhon
03-20-2012, 09:36
Just in-

Trayvon Martin case to go to grand jury, Fla. state attorney announces. The Seminole County Grand Jury will be called to session on Tuesday, April 10.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/20/10775671-trayvon-martin-case-to-go-to-grand-jury-fla-state-attorney-announces

jhon
03-20-2012, 09:43
The attached image is a Google earth street view of one of the entrances. Note the Imagery Date of 4/2011, the sign at the entrance on that date. That entrance sign looks like the image I inserted.

Another discrepancy?

Makes me wonder who is doing the investigation with those posted. I am sure there is some info that has not been put out, but I hate to say it, it is beginning to sound like another police department that did a crappy ( being nice ) investigation into a killing at this point.

Let alone the reports from the media, ie: TV, News, Papers, Radio, etc. That can't get there info together, but I guess thats not new....lol

High Altitude
03-20-2012, 10:11
Do we know conclusively who was screaming for help?

I found this.... it appears it is Zimmerman who is yelling out for help.

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...#ixzz1pcqHHxEC

cgjane
03-20-2012, 10:46
I found this.... it appears it is Zimmerman who is yelling out for help.

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...#ixzz1pcqHHxEC

Article doesn't work.

ATW525
03-20-2012, 10:54
Article doesn't work.

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation

The date is February 27th. I guess the media circus hadn't had a chance to tell witnesses what to say at that point.

kensteele
03-20-2012, 11:05
Just in-

Trayvon Martin case to go to grand jury, Fla. state attorney announces. The Seminole County Grand Jury will be called to session on Tuesday, April 10.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/20/10775671-trayvon-martin-case-to-go-to-grand-jury-fla-state-attorney-announces

That's all I ask for.

RussP
03-20-2012, 11:13
Just in-

Trayvon Martin case to go to grand jury, Fla. state attorney announces. The Seminole County Grand Jury will be called to session on Tuesday, April 10.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/20/10775671-trayvon-martin-case-to-go-to-grand-jury-fla-state-attorney-announces

That's all I ask for.Now it is all about how the State's Attorney presents the case to the Grand Jury.

Will he present for a no bill, or will he present for an indictment?

c6601a
03-20-2012, 11:14
The attached image is a Google earth street view of one of the entrances. Note the Imagery Date of 4/2011, the sign at the entrance on that date. That entrance sign looks like the image I inserted.

Another discrepancy?Neighborhood watch signs can be purchased from the internet and installed by anyone on their own property. You do not actually have to have a neighborhood watch program to do so.

We are currently in the process of exploring setting up a neighborhood watch program. At the first meeting with the local police they suggested that we put up the signs while we figure out if there is enough interest to actually set up a neighborhood watch. Maybe things are different in FL, but I suspect not.

c6601a
03-20-2012, 11:18
Now it is all about how the State's Attorney presents the case to the Grand Jury.

Will he present for a no bill, or will he present for an indictment?A no-bil will invariably result in a federal indictment. The comment by Zimmerman on the 911 tape along the lines of "These **** always get away with it" will be the basis of the civil rights charge.

A no-bill also means FL residents can kiss the "Stand your ground law" goodbye.

c6601a
03-20-2012, 11:26
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation

The date is February 27th. I guess the media circus hadn't had a chance to tell witnesses what to say at that point.Sorry, but his story does not add up.

According to him the person on the bottom was yelling specifically to this witness for help and the witness told him to stop yelling. Does that make any sense?

Then the witness went inside to call 911. By the time get got to the phone he heard a shot and saw the aggressor on the ground dead. So he decided NOT to call 911 because no attack was ongoing? Do you really buy that?

kensteele
03-20-2012, 11:30
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation

The date is February 27th. I guess the media circus hadn't had a chance to tell witnesses what to say at that point.

"A man who witnessed part of the altercation contacted authorities."

It is possible that Martin jumped on top of Zman after Zman chase Martin down, grabbed Martin or pushed Martin and knocked the phone from Martin's hand. Martin struck back with a swift blow to the nose and Zman slipped on the wet grass and hit the back of head on the ground. Finding himself in a horrible position, Zman pulled his weapon and fired. Shouldn't be too difficult to determine how far and what angle the bullet struck.

slimgoodman
03-20-2012, 11:33
Again, playing both sides because I donít have enough information, until I do, I make certain assumptions to see how a reasonable person could have reacted. Even if weíre talking about a gun-grab by Martin, what would you do if you were a 17 year old kid being followed by an adult male unknown to you and at some point you become aware he is armed? Martin canít read Zimmermanís mind, he doesnít know why he is following him, he doesnít know what his intentions are.

.

Very good point relative to a law abiding & reasonable thinking citizen's (Martin) attempt to get away from an armed, unknown person stalking him, but may be overlooked & downplayed as this investigation proceeds due to law enforcement's (Sanford PD) need to justify their "not enough evidence to arrest" position.

kensteele
03-20-2012, 11:35
Now it is all about how the State's Attorney presents the case to the Grand Jury.

Will he present for a no bill, or will he present for an indictment?

I think he will present for an indictment. But again, we don't know all the information or all the facts, this might be a slam dunk self-defense case...or not. From a different article (http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/20/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html), this was mentioned: "[State Attorney] said he called for an expeditious review from the police department, and 'areas for further investigation have been identified.'"

kensteele
03-20-2012, 11:41
A no-bill also means FL residents can kiss the "Stand your ground law" goodbye.

I need FL to keep that law just in case I go to FL and need to use it legitimately. Even so, it could cast a shadow on other state's stand your ground law. However, if FL is going to abuse it (or allow someone like Zman and the Sanford police to apply it at their own convenience/discretion) or use it in the spirit it was not intended, rightly FL will then deserve to lose it.

kensteele
03-20-2012, 11:52
Very good point relative to a law abiding & reasonable thinking citizen's (Martin) attempt to get away from an armed, unknown person stalking him, but may be overlooked & downplayed as this investigation proceeds due to law enforcement's (Sanford PD) need to justify their "not enough evidence to arrest" position.

Children are always told if they are stalked or grabbed or inappropriately touched by adults who are not law enforcement, to aggressively fight back and defend yourself and try to get away. Young black male children are not exempt from this. If the potential kidnapper pedofile has a gun and you are in the right position, you get that gun from him and you blow his brains out if you can do it. Any adult who would knowingly or unknowingly lay their hands on a minor child or harass them in any way can expect to draw back a nub. if you harm that child, you can expect the entire weight of the neighborhood, the law enforcement community (ex. a few departments), the state and federal government, and the entire world via social media to descent on you. Your only true friends will be your family, your lawyer (maybe not), a few sympathisers (a few here on GT), and the criminal elements of society. Are their no relevant adult/minor laws in FL covering this area?

dosei
03-20-2012, 12:08
Sorry, but his story does not add up.

According to him the person on the bottom was yelling specifically to this witness for help and the witness told him to stop yelling. Does that make any sense?

Then the witness went inside to call 911. By the time get got to the phone he heard a shot and saw the aggressor on the ground dead. So he decided NOT to call 911 because no attack was ongoing? Do you really buy that?

For starters...he DID call 911, his call is one of the recordings that have been released.

He saw a black male assaulting a white male, the white male was on the ground and was yelling for help.

He then simply yelled "Stop, I'm calling 911", closed his door, ran upstairs, dialed 911, and looked out the window...by this time the white male had shot the black male.

Considering the fact that everyone involved in this were male, "him" and "he" can used to refer to either of them.

jack76590
03-20-2012, 13:05
Trayvon Martin was on the phone:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-death-friend-phone-teen-death-recounts/story?id=15959017#.T2iINJtN_Sg

Quote from article that indicates there was recording made of private conversation between Trayvon Martin and his girlfriend. I did not think private calls were routinely recorded. Am I misunderstanding something. Quote from article,

"...Martin's father, Tracey Martin, and mother, Sybrina Fulton, listened to the call, along with ABC News, ashen-faced..."

Misty02
03-20-2012, 13:09
Very good point relative to a law abiding & reasonable thinking citizen's (Martin) attempt to get away from an armed, unknown person stalking him, but may be overlooked & downplayed as this investigation proceeds due to law enforcement's (Sanford PD) need to justify their "not enough evidence to arrest" position.

Itís not that it is being downplayed; it is that no one is questioning the legalities of Martinís actions. What is being questioned is whether Zimmerman is guilty of a crime or not.

.

High Altitude
03-20-2012, 13:23
Sorry, but his story does not add up.

According to him the person on the bottom was yelling specifically to this witness for help and the witness told him to stop yelling. Does that make any sense?

Then the witness went inside to call 911. By the time get got to the phone he heard a shot and saw the aggressor on the ground dead. So he decided NOT to call 911 because no attack was ongoing? Do you really buy that?

It just says I told him to stop, not stop yelling.

Most likely it means he told him, the attacker, the guy on top, to stop, I am calling 911.

He his outside, he sees this guy on top attacking someone, the guy on bottom is screaming for help and he tells the attacker to stop, I am calling 911.

To me this makes perfect sense. Any normal person would probably do the same thing in the same situation.

High Altitude
03-20-2012, 13:24
"A man who witnessed part of the altercation contacted authorities."

It is possible that Martin jumped on top of Zman after Zman chase Martin down, grabbed Martin or pushed Martin and knocked the phone from Martin's hand. Martin struck back with a swift blow to the nose and Zman slipped on the wet grass and hit the back of head on the ground. Finding himself in a horrible position, Zman pulled his weapon and fired. Shouldn't be too difficult to determine how far and what angle the bullet struck.

Anything is possible, but what does the evidence, that will be presented in court say.

There is Zimmermans story, Trayvon's story, what really happened, and what the evidence will say happened.

ATW525
03-20-2012, 14:03
Quote from article that indicates there was recording made of private conversation between Trayvon Martin and his girlfriend. I did not think private calls were routinely recorded. Am I misunderstanding something. Quote from article,

"...Martin's father, Tracey Martin, and mother, Sybrina Fulton, listened to the call, along with ABC News, ashen-faced..."

I read that, too, but I've seen other stories that imply the recording of was of the witness recounting the call to the attorney, not the call itself. I'm wondering which one it is.

jack76590
03-20-2012, 14:09
I read that, too, but I've seen other stories that imply the recording of was of the witness recounting the call to the attorney, not the call itself. I'm wondering which one it is.

I believe you are correct. I would hope so, as I don't want my calls routinely recorded.

But it certainly illustrates how poor the standards of reporting have become.

Bruce M
03-20-2012, 16:14
...: 776.012 Use of force in defense of person (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC012.HTM&Title=->2008->Ch0776->Section%20012#0776.012)

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. (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/Sec013.HTM)







....


.




And therein lies one of both the good and bad points of this law. It does not matter what we believe is reasonable or what a reasonable person believes is reasonable, it appears to me as I read it, it only matters what HE thinks is reasonable at the time. (Note that is my inexpert, non-legal take of this. Might be nice if one the Lawyers could clarify this.)

I need FL to keep that law just in case I go to FL and need to use it legitimately. Even so, it could cast a shadow on other state's stand your ground law. However, if FL is going to abuse it (or allow someone like Zman and the Sanford police to apply it at their own convenience/discretion) or use it in the spirit it was not intended, rightly FL will then deserve to lose it.


Again, there lies part of the problem, as I read it. This incident does not sound legitimate to me either; but it appears that this statute may hinge on not what any of us feel is legitimate, or even what a prosecutor feels is legitimate, but rather what Zimmerman felt was reasonable. I don' think that him leaving the safety of his auto was reasonable, but apparently he does.

kensteele
03-20-2012, 16:58
I read that, too, but I've seen other stories that imply the recording of was of the witness recounting the call to the attorney, not the call itself. I'm wondering which one it is.

I don't rememeber where I saaw this but yes, the recording is of the girl repeating her story. As she is recounting her story from memory in a phone call to the lawyers, she is recorded. That recording is then played back for the audience to hear what was is being said. To my knowledge, no one has heard the actual phone call between Martin and the girl.

ATW525
03-20-2012, 17:01
"Study" finds holding gun makes you think others have guns:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/context-for-fla-shooting-study-finds-holding-gun-makes-you-likely-to-think-others-have-guns/2012/03/20/gIQANpfDQS_story.html

Patchman
03-20-2012, 17:10
I don't rememeber where I saaw this but yes, the recording is of the girl repeating her story. As she is recounting her story from memory in a phone call to the lawyers, she is recorded. That recording is then played back for the audience to hear what was is being said. To my knowledge, no one has heard the actual phone call between Martin and the girl.

I have to wonder, given the hoopla by the Martin family that occurred immediately after their son was killed, about how accurate or complete the girl's story is.

Certainly not suggesting she is consciously lying.

Patchman
03-20-2012, 17:21
"Study" finds holding gun makes you think others have guns:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/context-for-fla-shooting-study-finds-holding-gun-makes-you-likely-to-think-others-have-guns/2012/03/20/gIQANpfDQS_story.html

That's an interesting article.

Can't speak for anyone else who CCW. But I know I'm old, out of shape (as compared to teens, 20 y.o. and 30 y.os), quick with a disarming smile and CCWs. So if anyone directs their anger and rage at me, I always assume they have a nafarious plan.

kensteele
03-20-2012, 17:25
Again, there lies part of the problem, as I read it. This incident does not sound legitimate to me either; but it appears that this statute may hinge on not what any of us feel is legitimate, or even what a prosecutor feels is legitimate, but rather what Zimmerman felt was reasonable. I don' think that him leaving the safety of his auto was reasonable, but apparently he does.

I see what you are saying. Somehow that doesn't sound right to me. All criminal believe whatever they do is reasonable. How can you allow someone to be the sole decider (is that a word?) what is reasonable or not simply based on what they alone think? What if Martin believes it is reasonable for him to shoot all black males if they speak back to him and everybody else thinks it is unreasonable? Is it as simple as seeing if the shooter is able to articulate or express his reasons or not? No, I think it is determined what the reasonable person would do. But I could be wrong as IANA(FL)L.

And I'm ok with stand your ground as long as you go by the truth and the facts. If you have a right to be there, good. If you don't have a right to be there.... In this case, I think Zman lies and has made up a story that the authorities cannot refute so they feel they have no choice but to accept it. When your victim is dead and you add all kinds of [lies] to make him into the bad guy, it's kinda easy to make yourself look like the reasonable good guy and claim self-defense as long as the police are unable or unwilling to prove otherwise.

the part I am referring to in the previous paragraph is I don't believe Martin viciously attacked Zman and tried to kill him. I don't believe Martin tried to get Zman's gun in order to shoot him with it. Yes perhaps Zman took a blow to the nose. Yes perhaps Zman rolled around on the grass and Martin ended up on top of him. Yes there was a brief fight and it's not likely but I guess it is possible within seconds Zman wnent from a stalking racist with a calm voice and a macho demeanour acting like a cop apprehending a suspect to a crying moaning baby getting his ass kicked screaming like a girl pulled a cowardly act by shooting a teenager....and now he's hiding like a "wanted" man with the whole country looking at him. Put him in the same category with poor Casey Anthony.

Can I prove that Zman lies about the critical facts? At this point I cannot. I'm hoping the authorities can. But I'm not so naive as to believe Zman is an honest person with a good heart and Martin is the devil. Do I think the police can disbelieve Zman's recount and still prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they know better than Zman's story what really happened? Yes. that is my opinion. And with that, I gotta start winding this down because it's going to be go time soon.

kensteele
03-20-2012, 17:27
I have to wonder, given the hoopla by the Martin family that occurred immediately after their son was killed, about how accurate or complete the girl's story is.

Certainly not suggesting she is consciously lying.

Maybe, maybe not.

Why can't the witness be impeached under oath in front of a jury with a suspect on trial? Can we do it that way (the American way) instead of drawing straws?

ATW525
03-20-2012, 17:32
I have to wonder, given the hoopla by the Martin family that occurred immediately after their son was killed, about how accurate or complete the girl's story is.

Certainly not suggesting she is consciously lying.

It's definitely unfortunate that she didn't come forward and give her statement to the police three weeks ago. I think the credibility of any testimony she gives will be called into question. It's hard to imagine that the media frenzy and speculation hasn't influenced her recollection of events.

kensteele
03-20-2012, 17:39
"Study" finds holding gun makes you think others have guns:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/context-for-fla-shooting-study-finds-holding-gun-makes-you-likely-to-think-others-have-guns/2012/03/20/gIQANpfDQS_story.html

Interesting article.

Unfortunately I have a really, really biased view about this and I'm going to tell it anyway so it's just my opinion:

The sole entire deliberate reason to inform someone over the phone that your opponent has someone unknown or shiny in their hand is the prime the pump and make it appear that you have concerns that they have a weapon to do you harm. It sets the tone for the impending altercation. That's why you say it, to get it on record. History is filled with such cowardly antics and it's getting old.

Ultimately when nothing is found, you can't explain what you saw or why it was so shiny....but it was there (in your mind) and you were concerned at the time (afraid for your life). If not but a little bit, you are able to arm your opponent. Because it would be awful bad for you if you never ever saw a weapon of any kind or never had a concern about a weapon and you treated him a such. Zman was even so kind as to additionally make reference to something in the waistband which is about the most stereotypical statement you can make (fits his character).

Absolutely nothing was found, Zman was wrong about his suspicions, I think he lied about it even though it was dark, and yet we still can't tag Martin as completely unarmed and defenseless because of it.

I'm not fooled, not even the least bit.

kensteele
03-20-2012, 17:45
It's definitely unfortunate that she didn't come forward and give her statement to the police three weeks ago. I think the credibility of any testimony she gives will be called into question. It's hard to imagine that the media frenzy and speculation hasn't influenced her recollection of events.

Says who? Where are you reading this that the police dismissed her story or she failed to come forward or the police did a thorough search for witnesses and missed her? I must have missed that, when the police put out a call for more people to come forward last week, where was she and what did she do? A true statement is a true statement, who cares when it is told. It could be a year later. Remember what I said earlier, if you cheat and lie, expect to be disappointed.

How do you know her statement is not in that folder to the DA?

"Credibility of her testimony" is questioned at a criminal trial. There will be no criminal trial. In the event it does, the defendant is free to have his laywer bring up media frenzy and speculation all he wants. That's fair isn't it? ;)

Bruce M
03-20-2012, 17:54
I see what you are saying. Somehow that doesn't sound right to me. All criminal believe whatever they do is reasonable. How can you allow someone to be the sole decider (is that a word?) what is reasonable or not simply based on what they alone think? ....


I agree that this does not seem the way it should be. The first problem is that is not how I read the statute. The second problem, admittedly, is that I am neither especially adept at general comprehension nor at all qualified to read and interpret the law. That is (at the risk of being repetitive) why I would welcome someone who is an attorney to chime in. (But if they don't I completely understand.)

I also agree with the thought that if my inexpert guess is even remotely close to correct, it will not serve us well long term either for carry rights or defense rights.

Finally I like to remember in cases like this that if the only tool one has is a hammer everything looks like a nail, or at least far more things than should. Likewise if the only tool is a gun, I have to guess that at least sometimes events look like a time to shoot when they probably should not.

ATW525
03-20-2012, 18:19
Says who? Where are you reading this that the police dismissed her story or she failed to come forward or the police did a thorough search for witnesses and missed her? I must have missed that, when the police put out a call for more people to come forward last week, where was she and what did she do? A true statement is a true statement, who cares when it is told. It could be a year later. Remember what I said earlier, if you cheat and lie, expect to be disappointed.

How do you know her statement is not in that folder to the DA?

"Credibility of her testimony" is questioned at a criminal trial. There will be no criminal trial. In the event it does, the defendant is free to have his laywer bring up media frenzy and speculation all he wants. That's fair isn't it? ;)

From:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/20/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html

Natalie Jackson, another attorney for the Martin family, said police had not interviewed the girl.

Sanford Police Sgt. David Morgenstern said "at the onset, we asked any and all witnesses with information to come forward."

kensteele
03-20-2012, 18:41
From:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/20/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html

Thanks. To add to that:

"[Sanford Police Chief] would not say say whether the department has contacted the girl."

so like i said, the police could have missed her. Or they could have dismissed her. We still don't know what happened early on, all we know is the police say they don't have a statement from her.

So help me out with this, how exactly do the police conduct and conclude an investigation without talking to the last person that spoke to the deceased? Very very close to the time of the shooting if not within minutes. Do you think you have done a good job when you don't have a statement from that person?

It could be possible no such phone call exits so there is no one for the police to talk with or not last minute conversation to recount.

It could be the Martin lawyers and the family do not trust police with this witness and refused an interview. Not sure where this witness is located but it is likely she is not near the scene.

And then later when the lawyers went public with the witness statements, not sure what that is all about either.

As I have said, whenever a witness comes forward with information, it must be considered; not really sure if timing is a factor. Either way, she's out there now and it's before the findings have been announced. We still don't know if her statement is in that file folder to the DA or not, do we?

Misty02
03-20-2012, 19:03
Are you asking a question?

Someone (who I quoted) said if he were intoxicated or not would be irrelevant to the shooting.

I responded that early reports indicated he was the driver of the SUV.

If he was intoxicated, it would hardly be irrelevant because

1) It is already unlawful to operate a motor vehicle if intoxicated

2) If his judgement is impaired to operate a motor vehicle, said judgement would be called into question over the shooting.


Please let me know what parts of that don't make sense to you.

s. 316.193, F.S.


-G


It is possible (not that I know one way or the other) he didnít consent to the test. It also appears he was also not driving on a public road but patrolling within the private streets of the community.


Trayvon Martin's hometown Sen., Oscar Braynon, calls for hearings into Stand Your Ground law:

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/03/trayvon-martins-hometown-sen-oscar-braynon-calls-for-hearings-into-stand-your-ground-law.html (http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/03/trayvon-martins-hometown-sen-oscar-braynon-calls-for-hearings-into-stand-your-ground-law.html)

This is somewhat important for Floridians, since it's someone who is in a position to potentially initiate changes to Florida law.


I have a feeling this will NOT end well for any of us.

Just in-

Trayvon Martin case to go to grand jury, Fla. state attorney announces. The Seminole County Grand Jury will be called to session on Tuesday, April 10.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/20/10775671-trayvon-martin-case-to-go-to-grand-jury-fla-state-attorney-announces (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/20/10775671-trayvon-martin-case-to-go-to-grand-jury-fla-state-attorney-announces)


Probably the best news so far.

And therein lies one of both the good and bad points of this law. It does not matter what we believe is reasonable or what a reasonable person believes is reasonable, it appears to me as I read it, it only matters what HE thinks is reasonable at the time. (Note that is my inexpert, non-legal take of this. Might be nice if one the Lawyers could clarify this.)


Again, there lies part of the problem, as I read it. This incident does not sound legitimate to me either; but it appears that this statute may hinge on not what any of us feel is legitimate, or even what a prosecutor feels is legitimate, but rather what Zimmerman felt was reasonable. I don' think that him leaving the safety of his auto was reasonable, but apparently he does.


I have a feeling that in a court of law you still have to effectively articulate why ďyouĒ believe it was reasonable. Failure of your attorney to have that reasoning come across clearly to a jury would likely mean it wonít be found reasonable.

In my opinion, it is written that way because someone may believe being punched in the head doesnít rise to a level where lethal force is justified. However, for ďyouĒ it might if you have a medical condition where a single blow to the head could kill you or end life as you know it.

It's definitely unfortunate that she didn't come forward and give her statement to the police three weeks ago. I think the credibility of any testimony she gives will be called into question. It's hard to imagine that the media frenzy and speculation hasn't influenced her recollection of events.

It is quite possible, and it would make sense, that she didnít come forward earlier because her parents didnít let her. How many parents would forbid their child from being involved in a murder case and attempt to spare them the depositions, trial and media circus?


.

Z28ricer
03-20-2012, 19:06
Its quite interesting to see how many people are easily manipulated by the media, and what they want you to read, he was told by police that it's best he didnt go to the media with his side of the story, and even if he had, you wouldnt have gotten it, just bits and pieces twisted up into what they decided would best sell.

Misty02
03-20-2012, 19:11
Question Ė must the police disclose to the family everything they know? Is it possible that a lot more is known to them than what has been disclosed thus far?

.

Misty02
03-20-2012, 19:15
Its quite interesting to see how many people are easily manipulated by the media, and what they want you to read, he was told by police that it's best he didnt go to the media with his side of the story, and even if he had, you wouldnt have gotten it, just bits and pieces twisted up into what they decided would best sell.

It would not be wise for him to talk to the media. The more information that is leaked now, the less information his attorney has to work with at trial.

.

Z28ricer
03-20-2012, 19:30
It would not be wise for him to talk to the media. The more information that is leaked now, the less information his attorney has to work with at trial.

.

Exactly why its amazing to see people so convinced what the media wanted to sell them, they were fed exactly what the media, and the possible victims family wanted, and bit right into it.

saxconnection
03-20-2012, 19:32
Interesting article.

Unfortunately I have a really, really biased view about this and I'm going to tell it anyway so it's just my opinion:

The sole entire deliberate reason to inform someone over the phone that your opponent has someone unknown or shiny in their hand is the prime the pump and make it appear that you have concerns that they have a weapon to do you harm. It sets the tone for the impending altercation. That's why you say it, to get it on record. History is filled with such cowardly antics and it's getting old.



I have to disagree. Although it can be said that saying they have "something" in their hands, that can be the downright truth, whether it be a weapon or a bag of skittles.

I'm not saying one or the other was right. I'm going to draw a bit of inference here, if I may, to the subject. Zman stated he (Martin) was grabbing at his waistband. It has been stated that Martin had bought an iced tea, and a bag of skittles, which he carried in his pockets. Here's the inference part; many young kids wear baggy pants and are in great need of a proper belt. Is it so hard to imagine the Martin was grabbing at his waist band? If his garb that day included a pair of loose fitting pants, and no belt, or one that didn't fit, he could have merely been trying to hold his pants up.

My take is that both sides did certain things that lead to this tragedy. Martin did things that Zman misread, such as grabbing at his waistband, which may have lead Zman to the conclusion Martin did indeed have a weapon. In the conversation and ultimate violence that followed, there may have been a time Zman had his weapon discovered, where he had to make that tragic choice to shoot.

I'm not saying Zman's innocent. I'm saying that aside from the fact that he left his car to follow Martin, this could have happened to any of us.

My $.02

Adam

steveksux
03-20-2012, 19:36
And therein lies one of both the good and bad points of this law. It does not matter what we believe is reasonable or what a reasonable person believes is reasonable, it appears to me as I read it, it only matters what HE thinks is reasonable at the time. (Note that is my inexpert, non-legal take of this. Might be nice if one the Lawyers could clarify this.)I think you are mistaken.

He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessaryHe or she must reasonably believe doesn't mean he or she believes it is reasonable. It means the belief must be reasonable, as in, what a reasonable person would believe.

Randy

kensteele
03-20-2012, 19:54
Its quite interesting to see how many people are easily manipulated by the media, and what they want you to read, he was told by police that it's best he didnt go to the media with his side of the story, and even if he had, you wouldnt have gotten it, just bits and pieces twisted up into what they decided would best sell.

Of course Zman should not be speaking to the media. Who's asking him to? The only thing I want him to do is speak to a jury thru his lawyer. Zman has every right to not incriminate himself or testify at his trial.

The whole country is going by what they see on TV and read on the Internet. So are you. Luckily I wasn't born last week and as such I am not so easily manipulated as you suggest. I know a young black boy is dead and I know who shot him and is claiming self defense. What else do I need to know? You statements about media manipulation apply to a jury, not to me.

Z28ricer
03-20-2012, 19:56
Of course Zman should not be speaking to the media. Who's asking him to? The only thing I want him to do is speak to a jury thru his lawyer. Zman has every right to not incriminate himself or testify at his trial.

The whole country is going by what they see on TV and read on the Internet. So are you. Luckily I wasn't born last week and as such I am not so easily manipulated as you suggest. I know a young black boy is dead and I know who shot him and is claiming self defense. What else do I need to know? You statements about media manipulation apply to a jury, not to me.

Well if you ever have to defend yourself, hopefully the same comes back around for you and people demand you be put in front of a jury, even if it is clear that you were in fact defending yourself and were justified.

Misty02
03-20-2012, 19:59
Exactly why its amazing to see people so convinced what the media wanted to sell them, they were fed exactly what the media, and the possible victims family wanted, and bit right into it.

Most people here have analyzed the possibilities from both sides and made some speculations for the sake of learning from the event. With the exception of getting out of the car, I believe the majority are still of the opinion that not much is known and thus no real conclusion can be reached as to his guilt or innocence.

.

LApm9
03-20-2012, 20:02
The kid was unarmed. Fact.

Wouldn't you turn into a fighter if you walked to the store to buy snacks, and on the way home a man starts following you and produces a weapon?




If I was unarmed, it would turn me into a track star...

In my area, an LEO advised me that a person who attacks a person known to be armed is considered to be attacking with lethal intent. This is not from a lawyer, just a shift commander.

Misty02
03-20-2012, 20:03
I think you are mistaken.

He or she must reasonably believe doesn't mean he or she believes it is reasonable. It means the belief must be reasonable, as in, what a reasonable person would believe.

Randy

I agree with your statement. It must be reasonable and presented in a way the jury will see it as reasonable as well.

.

vkscott
03-20-2012, 20:04
You raise an interesting point re civil suit and liability. As I mentioned earlier, I doubt if Zimmerman has enough resources to make cost of civil suit worthwhile. However, if the community has some liability for his actions then perhaps the community, which I assume has insurance, can be sued.

If the community is sued for the action of one of "their" neighborhood watch members then this would have chilling effect on the neighborhood watch program nationwide.

Of course the police department, which may enjoy some form of immunity, might also be sued if they sanctioned or cooperated with the neighborhood watch program.

All about finding someone with deep enough pockets to sue. Whether the protection afforded by Florida law against civil suit in a non criminal shooting would extend to the homeowner community and police who may have connections to the neightborhood watch problem is also an interesting question.

That is a very interesting point. I live in a subdivision in a Houston suburb. Two years ago we formed a NWP. I was appointed as the NWP Coordinator and have 15 Block Captains in the program. When we started, we held meetings with our local PD to help us set up our program. We are registered with the National NWP and sponsored by the local PD, but NOT affiliated or sponsored by the HOA. The main focus of our program is to keep your eyes and ears open and educate yourself with the "goings on" in the neighborhood so you can easily spot suspicious activities. Get to know your neighbors and their kids, know who lives in the neighborhood. The most important points the PD made to me and the BCs was to never take matters into our own hands; If you see something suspicious, call 911; and never go out of your way to confront a potential BG.

Unfortunately a young kid lost his life and we will most likely never know the full story. From my initial understanding, Zimmerman exited the vehicle when Martin started approaching him, i now believe that to be incorrect. I can't second guess what transpired that night as there is insufficient information to make a judgement.

Z28ricer
03-20-2012, 20:06
Most people here have analyzed the possibilities from both sides and made some speculations for the sake of learning from the event. With the exception of getting out of the car, I believe the majority are still of the opinion that not much is known and thus no real conclusion can be reached as to his guilt or innocence.

.


Many were claiming a demand for him to stand in front of a jury, before the decision was made by the attorneys office, based off of just what they were spoon fed by the media.

The officers investigation and evidence is what determines this, not peoples quick jumping to conclusions based on what the media wants them to see thankfully.

A blatant disregard for the fact that he could have been well justified in his actions and people were acting like he should be in a cell already because of what the media fed them. Not that his actions and what he stated he did to the officers was at least a reasonable possibility for self defense on his part, and thus the investigation to determine whether charges should, or should not be filed.

kensteele
03-20-2012, 20:26
Well if you ever have to defend yourself, hopefully the same comes back around for you and people demand you be put in front of a jury, even if it is clear that you were in fact defending yourself and were justified.


Negative. There is nothing clear about this. If this was clear, I would certainly advocate no arrest no trial. I am voicing my displeasure because the situation as I see it is unclear and too many questions are left unanswered. On top of that, I believe it is unclear to the authorities as well. Even so, I believe the authorities have been hookwinked. I believe they are satisified to not have all the answers and to accept what they are told at face value.

if anything is it clear, this boy didn't deserve to killed.

I understand your mind is made up and what parts you have read and seen on the internet are clear to you. But I am not so confident and I have my doubts, I am skeptical. I would like to see a trial where the facts are clearly presented before a conclusion either way is reached. For the good of the community and believe it or not for the sake of Zman. My resolve is only strengthened by hearing the 911 tapes and listening to the police chief speak, I'm even more convinced this needs to be heard; media commentary and lawyer speak notwithstanding.

kensteele
03-20-2012, 20:32
Unfortunately a young kid lost his life and we will most likely never know the full story. From my initial understanding, Zimmerman exited the vehicle when Martin started approaching him, i now believe that to be incorrect. I can't second guess what transpired that night as there is insufficient information to make a judgement.

Too many recordings and stories so I am going strictly off of memory: Martin starting approaching Zman in his car (as if curious, not confrontation), Zman made observation about his target, and when Zman got out of his SUV they faced off, shortly after Martin ran and I think Zman paused but gave chase. Roughly.

Z28ricer
03-20-2012, 20:34
Negative. There is nothing clear about this. If this was clear, I would certainly advocate no arrest no trial. I am voicing my displeasure because the situation as I see it is unclear and too many questions are left unanswered. On top of that, I believe it is unclear to the authorities as well. Even so, I believe the authorities have been hookwinked. I believe they are satisified to not have all the answers and to accept what they are told at face value.

if anything is it clear, this boy didn't deserve to killed.

I understand your mind is made up and what parts you have read and seen on the internet are clear to you. But I am not so confident and I have my doubts, I am skeptical. I would like to see a trial where the facts are clearly presented before a conclusion either way is reached. For the good of the community and believe it or not for the sake of Zman. My resolve is only strengthened by hearing the 911 tapes and listening to the police chief speak, I'm even more convinced this needs to be heard; media commentary and lawyer speak notwithstanding.


You are right in that my mind is made up, but you seem to be very unclear as to howso.

1. People were stating a demand for him to be tried, long before the decision to do so happened.

2. The decision was to be made by the attorneys office, after a proper investigation was conducted, not after some media and the fallens family released what they wanted everyone to believe.

3. Every single person calling for such trial was completely without the facts in the police investigation, and yet acting as if they had heard it all.

4. A trial as you are demanding isnt for finding the facts, its to compare and analyze them, demanding a trial without having the truth just looks bad, and trigger happy, go figure.

kensteele
03-20-2012, 20:46
Many were claiming a demand for him to stand in front of a jury, before the decision was made by the attorneys office, based off of just what they were spoon fed by the media.

No I want him to stay in jail until the decision is reached by that state just like all the other folks have to wait in jail. If you're going to let his remain free in the meantime because he has a good excuse, you need to let others who have a good excuse remain free as well. I have no problem with that. But we all know that isn't the way the department operates so it's too late for that, hence the outcry.


The officers investigation and evidence is what determines this, not peoples quick jumping to conclusions based on what the media wants them to see thankfully.

The community feels the investigation is racially biased and the lack of evidence is irresponsible. all of us believe that a thorough and fair investigation and a complete review of the evidence is acceptable. Don't force us to accept something that we believe falls below that standard.


A blatant disregard for the fact that he could have been well justified in his actions and people were acting like he should be in a cell already because of what the media fed them. Not that his actions and what he stated he did to the officers was at least a reasonable possibility for self defense on his part, and thus the investigation to determine whether charges should, or should not be filed.

I am open to the possiblility that he might be innocent. I'd rather hear that from a jury at this point. I don't want to hear it from the police department, stated my reasons earlier. He is innocent until proven guilty. Jail is different than prison, he can bond out like everyone else. He shot a kid under strange and unusual circumstances, stop pretending like this is a petty misdemeanor of some sort.

kensteele
03-20-2012, 20:53
You are right in that my mind is made up, but you seem to be very unclear as to howso.

1. People were stating a demand for him to be tried, long before the decision to do so happened.

2. The decision was to be made by the attorneys office, after a proper investigation was conducted, not after some media and the fallens family released what they wanted everyone to believe.

3. Every single person calling for such trial was completely without the facts in the police investigation, and yet acting as if they had heard it all.

4. A trial as you are demanding isnt for finding the facts, its to compare and analyze them, demanding a trial without having the truth just looks bad, and trigger happy, go figure.

Sorry, I'm not seeing anything relevant to discuss in these points. I would suggest you stop listening on the fringe (you have those, it is understandable in cases like this) and try to focus on what is the correct message from the community. The message isn't to hang this guy without a trial. The community is seeking justice and won't tolerate a "pass." You can't understand that?

vkscott
03-20-2012, 20:56
What evidence is there for racism, other than the dead kid being black and the shooter presumably being white? Martin didn't live in the neighborhood, so Zimmerman being suspicious of an unfamiliar face walking through the gated community after dark doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Is he only allowed to be suspicious of unfamiliar white folks?

Someone posted earlier a link to the Sanford PD NWP Newsletter

Neighborhood Watch is:
♦ Learning about the people and activity patterns on your block, and how to recognize suspicious individuals, vehicles, and out-of-place behavior..

If, repeat IF, the above was true and Zimmerman was in fear of his life, it wouldn't matter if the person was green, the Florida statue would protect Zimmerman.I am not taking the side of Zimmerman as I don't know enough about what happened. Its unfortnate that the events took place.

I am watching a video of a neighbor in the subdivision that has me somewhat POed he starts of saying that young black males have been seen in the area committing crimes and the SPD has been called out on numerous occasions. He then questions why Mr. Zimmerman was carrying a gun (he was authorized to, DUH), he then says that any time you carry a gun, or use a gun, its an extension of anger. Hmm, now thats a line of BS from an anti-gun supporter.

Misty02
03-20-2012, 21:17
Many were claiming a demand for him to stand in front of a jury, before the decision was made by the attorneys office, based off of just what they were spoon fed by the media.

The officers investigation and evidence is what determines this, not peoples quick jumping to conclusions based on what the media wants them to see thankfully.

A blatant disregard for the fact that he could have been well justified in his actions and people were acting like he should be in a cell already because of what the media fed them. Not that his actions and what he stated he did to the officers was at least a reasonable possibility for self defense on his part, and thus the investigation to determine whether charges should, or should not be filed.

I know. At this point this is so huge that it is possible a court determination would be the best thing for Zimmerman if he is really innocent. If heís not charged he likely doesnít get the benefit of court appointed counsel. If he doesnít have the financial means, going through all this without one would be suicidal. Additionally, if he is innocent and it is declared so by a court of law, then heíll have no doubts heíll have the immunity offered by the statutes.

So, it may not necessarily be a bad thing for him if he is innocent.


.

ATW525
03-20-2012, 21:21
I know. At this point this is so huge that it is possible a court determination would be the best thing for Zimmerman if he is really innocent. If heís not charged he likely doesnít get the benefit of court appointed counsel. If he doesnít have the financial means, going through all this without one would be suicidal. Additionally, if he is innocent and it is declared so by a court of law, then heíll have no doubts heíll have the immunity offered by the statutes.

So, it may not necessarily be a bad thing for him if he is innocent.


.

I agree. If I were Zimmerman, I would be begging for the police to arrest me. Though I might be a little concerned that going to jail could potentially be a death sentence.

Misty02
03-20-2012, 21:29
I agree. If I were Zimmerman, I would be begging for the police to arrest me. Though I might be a little concerned that going to jail could potentially be a death sentence.

I agree, I would want a determination made as soon as they could. I donít know if there is a way a person can request or demand to appear before a grand jury to hear the case, but I would be on that boat. Good or bad, get me there quickly because waiting forever has to be worse than sitting in jail; more so when you take in consideration the magnitude of this case.

People need to remember that there is no statute of limitation on murder. Absent this public outcry he could have been charged many years from now, who wants to live with that cloud over their head?


.

jack76590
03-20-2012, 21:41
I agree. If I were Zimmerman, I would be begging for the police to arrest me. Though I might be a little concerned that going to jail could potentially be a death sentence.

Have to disagree with you on this one. If Zimmerman is arrested a cash bond may well be required for his release pending trial. If Zimmerman or his family have the cash they can post the bond. If unable to post the total amount of the bond from their own resources, then they may have enough to go to bail bondsman. I think they charge something like 10% of the total bond - I think others on forum may have more knowledge. But that 10% or whatever percent is gone and not refunded.

All money spend on bonds is not available to hire an attorney. Yes, maybe he would get a court appointed attorney. Yes that court ordered attorney, MAY be competent. But Zimmerman will need a lot of experts to have a chance of winning in my opinion - experts to analysis 911 calls, juror selection experts, use of force experts, etc.

At the end of the day I doubt if Zimmerman has assets that total up to $20,000. He really does not have much to worry about re civil suit. Yes, some lawyer may take a civil case on contingency, which pays the lawyer about a third of the amount recovered, if any. And you can't recover assets that are not there. For Zimmerman bankruptcy is a minor concern.

But ending up in prison unable to make bail, given the racial tensions this case has generated, is a life and death concern for Zimmerman.

Z28ricer
03-20-2012, 21:55
I know. At this point this is so huge that it is possible a court determination would be the best thing for Zimmerman if he is really innocent. If heís not charged he likely doesnít get the benefit of court appointed counsel. If he doesnít have the financial means, going through all this without one would be suicidal. Additionally, if he is innocent and it is declared so by a court of law, then heíll have no doubts heíll have the immunity offered by the statutes.

So, it may not necessarily be a bad thing for him if he is innocent.


.

It doesnt work that way, if they dont have a case, they arent and shouldnt be charging him with anything.

You dont get charged just because someone says you did something, which is exactly my point, people repeatedly were wanting him charged without knowing truely what did in fact happen.


Yes, waiting through the detectives / officers investigation isnt the greatest thing in the world, but to be formally charged is worse in the long run as they've determined that there was just reason to file charges, not determined that the actions were justified, and legal.

Z28ricer
03-20-2012, 21:58
Sorry, I'm not seeing anything relevant to discuss in these points. I would suggest you stop listening on the fringe (you have those, it is understandable in cases like this) and try to focus on what is the correct message from the community. The message isn't to hang this guy without a trial. The community is seeking justice and won't tolerate a "pass." You can't understand that?

Sorry, you're still listening to the "community" who isnt a group of trained professionals investigating the issue at hand.

What you cant understand is that I definetly didnt say the guy shouldnt stand trial if it is determined that there is just cause for such a trial, what I did say is you and the social media arent trained professionals with all of the facts and so shouldnt be anywhere near the decision to bring charges upon anyone, thankfully you/they arent allowed to make such a decision.

Misty02
03-20-2012, 22:06
It doesnt work that way, if they dont have a case, they arent and shouldnt be charging him with anything.

You dont get charged just because someone says you did something, which is exactly my point, people repeatedly were wanting him charged without knowing truely what did in fact happen.


Yes, waiting through the detectives / officers investigation isnt the greatest thing in the world, but to be formally charged is worse in the long run as they've determined that there was just reason to file charges, not determined that the actions were justified, and legal.

Look at the big picture. If it isn’t cleared as a justified self-defense shooting he has no protection/immunity from a legal suit. You don’t receive a court appointed attorney for a civil suit, he would have to go through that ordeal, where the bar of “beyond reasonable doubt” doesn't exist alone, if he can’t afford an attorney. If he’s cleared, he is immune in civil court.

ETA: Don’t lose sight of the forest for the trees. In criminal court he stands a better chance of being cleared. In civil court the wolves will have him for breakfast, lunch and dinner. If he's innocent, they might have done him a favor.
.

Z28ricer
03-20-2012, 22:14
Look at the big picture. If it isnít cleared as a justified self-defense shooting he has no protection/immunity from a legal suit. You donít receive a court appointed attorney for a civil suit, he would have to go through that ordeal, where the bar of ďbeyond reasonable doubtĒ doesn't exist alone, if he canít afford an attorney. If heís cleared, he is immune in civil court.

ETA: Donít lose sight of the forest for the trees. In criminal court he stands a better chance of being cleared. In civil court the wolves will have him for breakfast, lunch and dinner. If he's innocent, they might have done him a favor.
.

It can be cleared as an actual case of self defense without a trial, what makes you think there is a requirement of a trial to determine true self defense ?

Misty02
03-20-2012, 22:23
It can be cleared as an actual case of self defense without a trial, what makes you think there is a requirement of a trial to determine true self defense ?

This:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.ó
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html), s. 776.013 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html), or s. 776.031 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.031.html) 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 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0900-0999/0943/Sections/0943.10.html)(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 ďcriminal prosecutionĒ 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 attorneyís 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).



How much would it cost for the court to find that in civil suit? Who would take the plaintiffís case to civil suit if they knew a court had already declared it a justified self-defense?
.

Z28ricer
03-20-2012, 22:26
Where do you see that it must be determined that a court must determine it to be a justified case of self defense, and not determined before even needing a trial by the attorneys office due to it being a clear case of self defense as determined by the investigation and review of such ?

This:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.ó
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html), s. 776.013 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html), or s. 776.031 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.031.html) 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 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0900-0999/0943/Sections/0943.10.html)(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 ďcriminal prosecutionĒ 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 attorneyís 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).



How much would it cost for the court to find that in civil suit? Who would take the plaintiffís case to civil suit if they knew a court had already declared it a justified self-defense?
.

jack76590
03-20-2012, 22:27
Look at the big picture. If it isn’t cleared as a justified self-defense shooting he has no protection/immunity from a legal suit. You don’t receive a court appointed attorney for a civil suit, he would have to go through that ordeal, where the bar of “beyond reasonable doubt” doesn't exist alone, if he can’t afford an attorney. If he’s cleared, he is immune in civil court.

ETA: Don’t lose sight of the forest for the trees. In criminal court he stands a better chance of being cleared. In civil court the wolves will have him for breakfast, lunch and dinner. If he's innocent, they might have done him a favor.
.

How much in assets is Zimmerman a twenty something college student likely to have? I just don't see where he should be that concerned about a civil suit. He probably does not have assets to cover 80 hours of a decent attorney.

Zimmerman's total assets probably would not cover the cost of breakfast, lunch and dinner at McDonalds for those attending his trial.

Tiro Fijo
03-20-2012, 22:27
How is it the Feds can get in this so quick when they can't even "find" the illegals lounging in front of Home Depot? :dunno: :upeyes:


The "answer" to this case is what type of person was this kid. Was he a thug wannabe who went off on Zimmerman? Something triggered Zimmerman to shoot and he had cuts & scratches on his head & grass stains on his back. Where did those come from? I doubt it was from one spent ctg. case. :wavey: Has the Press mentioned also that the deceased was went to live with his father because of gang affiliation in his old neighborhood?

The Feds have NO business being in this matter and are only doing so as it is an election year and they are tossing a political bone. Imagine Obama & Holder doing that!! Whuddathunkit!! :upeyes:

Z28ricer
03-20-2012, 22:31
"
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,

As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
"

All of the part about force against LE removed.

Justified, before being charged, and clearly in section 1, immune from criminal as well as civil trial.

This isnt to restate the double jeapordy law, it can be determined a justified self defense issue, before a trial, thus the section specifically protecting one from further criminal trial after justified self defense has been determined, which can be determined by the states attorneys office.

whenmonkeysfly
03-20-2012, 22:39
From what I have read so far on this case, Zimmerman should have stayed in his vehicle and waited for police as instructed by the 911 Operator. (He really sounds like a wannabe cop and neighborhood busybody.)

It is sad that a seventeen year old boy is now dead. This did not have to happen. Too much ego and not enough respect for a human life.

IMHO, as a mature, rational CCW holder in Florida, I have a personal responsibility to avoid such confrontations when carrying a handgun/deadly weapon. This whole incident could have been easily avoided if Zimmerman simply followed instructions.

Now we have a kid who was killed unnecessarily and Florida Lawmakers scrambling to fix a law that is not broken. Sucks for Martin's Family. Sucks for responsible Florida CCW holders.

Misty02
03-20-2012, 22:54
Where do you see that it must be determined that a court must determine it to be a justified case of self defense, and not determined before even needing a trial by the attorneys office due to it being a clear case of self defense as determined by the investigation and review of such ?

It doesnít, it just states ďif the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1)Ē. What would be the process for a civil court to determine that the defendant is immune from prosecution?

.

Misty02
03-20-2012, 22:56
How much in assets is Zimmerman a twenty something college student likely to have? I just don't see where he should be that concerned about a civil suit. He probably does not have assets to cover 80 hours of a decent attorney.

Zimmerman's total assets probably would not cover the cost of breakfast, lunch and dinner at McDonalds for those attending his trial.


Would having no assets stop an attorney for the family that believes in the cause from bringing civil suit? Even if there isnít a penny, just to put him through the ringer and tie him up in court for the remainder of his natural life if they could.

.

Z28ricer
03-20-2012, 23:01
It doesn’t, it just states “if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1)”. What would be the process for a civil court to determine that the defendant is immune from prosecution?

.


Immune from prosecution as in subsection 1.

Exactly that, it states the statutes that provide for legal use of self defense, it doesnt state that it is required to be determined in court.

The states attorneys office can determined it to be lawful justified use of self defense without needing to press charges, if charges are filed they have reason to believe it was NOT justfied.

It can be clear from the beginning, and you avoid sitting inside a jail cell, hiring an attorney, bond, etc.

So, to answer your question, they would refer to the states attorneys decision that it was a legal use of self defense.

Misty02
03-20-2012, 23:01
From what I have read so far on this case, Zimmerman should have stayed in his vehicle and waited for police as instructed by the 911 Operator. (He really sounds like a wannabe cop and neighborhood busybody.)

It is sad that a seventeen year old boy is now dead. This did not have to happen. Too much ego and not enough respect for a human life.

IMHO, as a mature, rational CCW holder in Florida, I have a personal responsibility to avoid such confrontations when carrying a handgun/deadly weapon. This whole incident could have been easily avoided if Zimmerman simply followed instructions.

Now we have a kid who was killed unnecessarily and Florida Lawmakers scrambling to fix a law that is not broken. Sucks for Martin's Family. Sucks for responsible Florida CCW holders.

Iím in complete agreement.

(and I wouldnít have needed the 911 operator to tell me to not follow or stay in the car. Actually, it would have taken wild horses to get me out of that car.)


.

Misty02
03-20-2012, 23:04
Immune from prosecution as in subsection 1.

Exactly that, it states the statutes that provide for legal use of self defense, it doesnt state that it is required to be determined in court.

The states attorneys office can determined it to be lawful justified use of self defense without needing to press charges, if charges are filed they have reason to believe it was NOT justfied.

It can be clear from the beginning, and you avoid sitting inside a jail cell, hiring an attorney, bond, etc.

So, to answer your question, they would refer to the states attorneys decision that it was a legal use of self defense.

Understood. Has the state attorney determined that to date? It may be determined by the grand jury and end right there. But absent this chaos, it may have taken years to get that final determination. By the way, based on what I recall, they are sending the case to the grand jury, but I donít recall reading he was being arrested.

Z28ricer
03-20-2012, 23:06
Understood. Has the state attorney determined that to date? It may be determined by the grand jury and end right there. But absent this chaos, it may have taken years to get that final determination. By the way, based on what I recall, they are sending the case to the grand jury, but I don’t recall reading he was being arrested.



It was never my standpoint that they should do so in this case, only that people demanding a trial while knowing squat for facts shouldnt have necessarily been jumping up and down demanding justice.

Edit:

Yes he definetly should have stayed in his vehicle, on the possible downside there is this that I found while reading about the incident:



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.


Section 2 initially starts out with him technically being the aggressor, having gotten out of his vehicle, the downside is that with the possible witness saying he was yelling help and the deceased continued beating him may unfortunately cause section (b) to determine his actions to be justified.

vkscott
03-20-2012, 23:26
^couple of days ago i said this, now this story breaks:

"Police found a single shell casing at the scene, and when they seized George Zimmerman's handgun, a Kel Tel 9 mm, its magazine was full, according to a source close to the investigation. The only bullet missing was the one in the chamber, the source said." article (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-19/news/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-students-20120319_1_warning-shot-college-students-florida-a-m-university-student)

Bad reporting, who can see the problem(s) with this statement? All kinds of issues with understanding what this means exactly.* We'll still have to wait to see the actual evidence but as I said earlier, I don't think one shot or two shots is important; he's still in trouble even with just the one shot.

*How do you have a full magazine when you fire one round in a semi-auto handgun*What is a full magazine, when loaded to marked capacity or physically loaded with as many as can be jammed in*Of course the round originally in the chamber is always missing, did the next round not chamber*Did the gun jam*How many shell casings were not found by police*Did Zman operate his weapon before police seized it and after he shot it*Find any rounds in his pockets or in his car*Does Zman carry with a round in the chamber*


I carry with a round in the chamber.

Misty02
03-20-2012, 23:30
It was never my standpoint that they should do so in this case, only that people demanding a trial while knowing squat for facts shouldnt have necessarily been jumping up and down demanding justice.

Edit:

Yes he definetly should have stayed in his vehicle, on the possible downside there is this that I found while reading about the incident:



776.041 Use of force by aggressor.ĖThe 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.


Section 2 initially starts out with him technically being the aggressor, having gotten out of his vehicle, the downside is that with the possible witness saying he was yelling help and the deceased continued beating him may unfortunately cause section (b) to determine his actions to be justified.

No disagreement from me there. :)

.

jack76590
03-21-2012, 04:01
Would having no assets stop an attorney for the family that believes in the cause from bringing civil suit? Even if there isn’t a penny, just to put him through the ringer and tie him up in court for the remainder of his natural life if they could.

.

I don't think any attorney would take a case on contingency unless there was a potential payday large enough to justify their time.

Even if a civil judgment is rendered against Zimmerman he would not be put through the ringer his whole life. He could simply declare bankruptcy, if that was even required.

Remember the old saying, "you can't get blood out of a stone." And we no longer have debtors prisons.

If I were Zimmerman, assuming he has the assets of a normal 20 something college student, a civil suit would be so low in my list of concerns, as to be off my radar.

As in so sue me, you win. Can I keep my car and my clothing your Honor?

Average net worth of people in his age group is under $9,000 dollars. Link

http://www.moneyrelationship.com/retirement/the-average-net-worth-of-americans-where-do-you-stand/

A lawyer taking a case on contingency would take about a third of what he recovers or in this case under $3,000. Most lawyers bill $200+ an hour - and that is pretty sure payday. $3,000 at that rate covers 15 hours of court time. And a payday on contingency cases is not guaranteed.

Misty02
03-21-2012, 04:51
It was never my standpoint that they should do so in this case, only that people demanding a trial while knowing squat for facts shouldnt have necessarily been jumping up and down demanding justice.

Edit:

Yes he definetly should have stayed in his vehicle, on the possible downside there is this that I found while reading about the incident:



776.041 Use of force by aggressor.ĖThe 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.


Section 2 initially starts out with him technically being the aggressor, having gotten out of his vehicle, the downside is that with the possible witness saying he was yelling help and the deceased continued beating him may unfortunately cause section (b) to determine his actions to be justified.

I donít know exactly how the system works, so someone please correct me if Iím wrong, this falls within what I would like to learn more about. Letís assume for a minute this was a normal case of self-defense without all the notoriety.

Does the state attorney determine if it is a justified case of self-defense or could it have ended at the police level after their investigation and determining they couldnít prove otherwise?

If you donít go through the court system for that determination, can the state attorney or DA (or whomever) come back 5 or 10 years down the line with some miniscule piece of evidence that was overlooked in the original investigation and charge for murder?

Is a grand jury decision the same as going through a jury trial where you canít be tried twice for the same crime after youíve been exonerated?

Iím ashamed to admit that I donít know enough about the legal system to know these answers. Depending on what they are, I can see why a person would like for it to be done as quickly as possible so they can get on with their lives, whatís left of it anyway. Even if he is truly innocent of a criminal act, I donít believe heíll ever recover mentally or emotionally.

.

Misty02
03-21-2012, 05:13
I don't think any attorney would take a case on contingency unless there was a potential payday large enough to justify their time.

Even if a civil judgment is rendered against Zimmerman he would not be put through the ringer his whole life. He could simply declare bankruptcy, if that was even required.

Remember the old saying, "you can't get blood out of a stone." And we no longer have debtors prisons.

If I were Zimmerman, assuming he has the assets of a normal 20 something college student, a civil suit would be so low in my list of concerns, as to be off my radar.

As in so sue me, you win. Can I keep my car and my clothing your Honor?

Average net worth of people in his age group is under $9,000 dollars. Link

http://www.moneyrelationship.com/retirement/the-average-net-worth-of-americans-where-do-you-stand/

A lawyer taking a case on contingency would take about a third of what he recovers or in this case under $3,000. Most lawyers bill $200+ an hour - and that is pretty sure payday. $3,000 at that rate covers 15 hours of court time. And a payday on contingency cases is not guaranteed.

Keep in mind that the type of blood many want from this stone is not money. The payday being sought is not a padded bank account. Do civil cases work like criminal cases where after youíre exonerated you canít be brought to court again? Do you see the Brady Bunch or others facilitating attorneys, free of charge, to make an example of Zimmerman?

I was thinking last night. That last article posted from the end of February, which has received no further press and I hadnít read before yesterday where that witness described Zimmerman as the one at the bottom getting his rear handed to him. Could it possibly be that in spite everything else he might have done wrong, he didnít want to lay a hand on the kid and yelled for help so someone would get the kid off him? Could it be he didnít want to harm him? Could he have lacked the ability to restrain him and to prevent other injuries like the one that left him bleeding from his head and that is when he decided to use his firearm?

One article mentioned that Martin was 6í3Ē and 140 lbs. How difficult would it be to restrain a kid that size? If you invest your energy in preventing from being hit in lieu of fighting back, could it get to a point where you lack the strength to go further and then youíre in real trouble? Could it reach a point where a person may think ďif I donít do something quick this kid is going to kill meĒ?

The funny thing is that, in my mind, I can also understand why Martin (or anyone) might reach a point where they believe it is necessary to physically stop someone following them, they donít know what the personís intentions are.

Iíve never been in a physical fight either, so Iím not quite certain what is reasonable or possible.


.

Bren
03-21-2012, 05:22
I don't think any attorney would take a case on contingency unless there was a potential payday large enough to justify their time.

Even if a civil judgment is rendered against Zimmerman he would not be put through the ringer his whole life. He could simply declare bankruptcy, if that was even required.


I'm sure he would have to declare bankruptcy, but that does not relieve a civil judgment of this type.


Remember the old saying, "you can't get blood out of a stone." And we no longer have debtors prisons.

If I were Zimmerman, assuming he has the assets of a normal 20 something college student, a civil suit would be so low in my list of concerns, as to be off my radar.

As in so sue me, you win. Can I keep my car and my clothing your Honor?

Average net worth of people in his age group is under $9,000 dollars. Link

http://www.moneyrelationship.com/retirement/the-average-net-worth-of-americans-where-do-you-stand/

A lawyer taking a case on contingency would take about a third of what he recovers or in this case under $3,000. Most lawyers bill $200+ an hour - and that is pretty sure payday. $3,000 at that rate covers 15 hours of court time. And a payday on contingency cases is not guaranteed.

They can also garnish his pay check, once his bank account is empty and they can keep doing that for the rest of his life, for about half his pay, as long as they have a lawyer willing to do it. Some lawyers would do it for free, which I've seen in a shooting case. I've taken cases for free, even criminal defense and divorce, just because they seemed interesting or I wanted the experience.

So go ahead and get sued - they can keep you on the hook until they get paid or you die or you decide to become unemployed and homeless.

IndyGunFreak
03-21-2012, 06:46
And for those who believe in our right to bear arms, idiots like ZMan are the most significant threats to those rights.

I think I've found far bigger threats to our RKBA than Zimmerman in this very thread.

I'm still waiting for you to show me he "escalated" the situation. Getting out of your car does not escalate a situation. If he got out of his car and tried to detain him, that's escalating.

IGF

ATW525
03-21-2012, 07:43
George Zimmerman supposedly used racial slur while on phone with police:

http://www.reddingnewsreview.com/newspages/2012newspages/joe_madison_uncovers_racial_slur_12_1000036.htm

dosei
03-21-2012, 07:51
deleted...

Gallium
03-21-2012, 07:56
I think I've found far bigger threats to our RKBA than Zimmerman in this very thread.

I'm still waiting for you to show me he "escalated" the situation. Getting out of your car does not escalate a situation. If he got out of his car and tried to detain him, that's escalating.

IGF

Zimmerman shot someone under what is now unfolding to be dubious circumstances. To my knowledge, no one in this thread has made any statements indicating they've previously, or are currently under the cone of police scrutiny, or are under the glare of the media spotlight.

Your statement of finding bigger threats to our RKBA in this thread compared to Zimmerman is simply a case of acute histrionics.


There was no situation to "escalate". This scenario was completely and artificially constructed by the shooter, an idiotic holster sniffer who wanted to play cop.




There has been no data presented to indicate the deceased was conducting himself in a manner in which a reasonable person or the police would have described as suspicious -hence, even if this shooter was a police officer on duty within his jurisdiction, outside of striking up friendly conversation, there would not have been any basis (no reasonable suspicion, no probable cause, the deceased did not match the description of a suspect, no exigency, no pursuit) for an official stop by the police.





Yes, it is a free country, and you should be free to disembark from your vehicle where-ever it is lawful to do so. I suspect I speak for the REASONABLE person when I say, if I see someone who I reasonably believe is a criminal, or is in the process of committing some criminal act, where there is no immediate and grave threat to life, or serious bodily injury to some 3rd party, that my reasonable response would be to observe and report as much as possible to law enforcement versus actively inserting myself into that situation.

Obviously, your notion of "reasonable" differs from that of the rest of our society, and apparently is more closely aligned with that of the shooter.


-G

cgk
03-21-2012, 09:40
Zimmerman shot someone under what is now unfolding to be dubious circumstances.

:goodpost:

It's reassuring for me to find this view here and a reasonable discussion about the situation. On another firearm forum I read it's not the case.

c6601a
03-21-2012, 09:53
George Zimmerman supposedly used racial slur while on phone with police:

http://www.reddingnewsreview.com/newspages/2012newspages/joe_madison_uncovers_racial_slur_12_1000036.htmI saw/heard that on TV last night (Young Turks, on CurrentTV). I had to turn the volume ALL the way up, but it was very clear. What was also clear is that Zimmerman was breathing very heavily, suggesting that he was running. This was just before the 911 operator asks him "Are you following him"

This and his earlier statement to the 911 operator to the effect that "these **** always get away" are more than enough to form the basis for a civil rights case against him.

IndyGunFreak
03-21-2012, 09:57
Zimmerman shot someone under what is now unfolding to be dubious circumstances. To my knowledge, no one in this thread has made any statements indicating they've previously, or are currently under the cone of police scrutiny, or are under the glare of the media spotlight.

Your statement of finding bigger threats to our RKBA in this thread compared to Zimmerman is simply a case of acute histrionics.


There was no situation to "escalate". This scenario was completely and artificially constructed by the shooter, an idiotic holster sniffer who wanted to play cop.




There has been no data presented to indicate the deceased was conducting himself in a manner in which a reasonable person or the police would have described as suspicious -hence, even if this shooter was a police officer on duty within his jurisdiction, outside of striking up friendly conversation, there would not have been any basis (no reasonable suspicion, no probable cause, the deceased did not match the description of a suspect, no exigency, no pursuit) for an official stop by the police.





Yes, it is a free country, and you should be free to disembark from your vehicle where-ever it is lawful to do so. I suspect I speak for the REASONABLE person when I say, if I see someone who I reasonably believe is a criminal, or is in the process of committing some criminal act, where there is no immediate and grave threat to life, or serious bodily injury to some 3rd party, that my reasonable response would be to observe and report as much as possible to law enforcement versus actively inserting myself into that situation.

Obviously, your notion of "reasonable" differs from that of the rest of our society, and apparently is more closely aligned with that of the shooter.


-G

I didn't say Zimmerman is 100% right here ( I actually have some personal issues with this shooting, but I'm keeping them private, but thank you for the false accusation). Frankly I don't disagree at all w/ a lot of what you said. I'm asking where he came to all the conclusions he has posted here. While he may have escalated this to more than what he should have (and was instructed) to do.. There's no evidence to suggest he actually escalated the actual confrontation.

As for the phone call, that's a pretty stupid statement. I've heard(and probably even said) far dumber things in the heat of the moment (granted, "heat of the moment" is something he created here).

What I won't do, is start calling this guys names, saying he's a racist, etc.. when really there hasn't been much evidence RELEASED to support either side of the argument.

c6601a
03-21-2012, 10:09
If you donít go through the court system for that determination, can the state attorney or DA (or whomever) come back 5 or 10 years down the line with some miniscule piece of evidence that was overlooked in the original investigation and charge for murder?Yes, they can do that at any time during the statute of limitations. There is no statute of limitations for murder.

From a practical standpoint, the longer it is between the crime and the trial, the harder it is to get reliable testimony from witnesses. Recollections from 10 years ago are a lot less reliable and believable than recollections from 2 years ago. Witnesses can die or become unlocateable. Physical evidence can get misplaced or in some cases deteriorate. So it is best for the DA to move forward with the case as soon as practical.
Is a grand jury decision the same as going through a jury trial where you canít be tried twice for the same crime after youíve been exonerated?No, it is not the same. Under the law, if a grand jury "no-bils" a case, the DA can come back with new evidence or even go to a different grand jury with the same evidence and can do that as many times as they want. In real life, a DA will never go back more than once or maybe twice because there will be a public outcry against it and that is not good for re-election.

I do know for a fact that in the 1990's, if a federal grand jury no-billed a case, the local US attorney had to get permission from the AG before going back to with more evidence or to a different grand jury. There was no law to that effect, just the justice department policy. That may be different now, but I doubt it.

4TS&W
03-21-2012, 10:13
It was definately painted as a bad shoot in the press. Was it really? I don't know, but it seems like the folks on scene, in their judgement, decided to proceed as if it were a good shoot.

c6601a
03-21-2012, 10:14
As for the phone call, that's a pretty stupid statement. I've heard(and probably even said) far dumber things in the heat of the moment.Then you better learn to cool things down before it gets you into serious trouble. People have been convicted almost solely because of utterances in the heat of the moment.

In fact, utterances in the heat of the moment are considered more indicative of what the person is really thinking/feeling than the socially acceptable things they say in their every day life.

ATW525
03-21-2012, 10:19
I saw/heard that on TV last night (Young Turks, on CurrentTV). I had to turn the volume ALL the way up, but it was very clear. What was also clear is that Zimmerman was breathing very heavily, suggesting that he was running. This was just before the 911 operator asks him "Are you following him"

This and his earlier statement to the 911 operator to the effect that "these **** always get away" are more than enough to form the basis for a civil rights case against him.

I've listened to it many times over. It's pretty clear what the first word is, but the second word is decidedly less clear. I've seen some pretty good arguments that the word is in fact "punks". I've heard it slowed down with noise reduction, and it definitely sounds like "punks" to me.

c6601a
03-21-2012, 10:24
While he may have escalated this to more than what he should have (and was instructed) to do.. There's no evidence to suggest he actually escalated the actual confrontation.And that is where you are missing the point. Once a person decide to escalate or create a situation, which you concede that Zimmerman did, it does not matter who does the final bit of escalation. That is the basis for a lot of our laws, including the castle doctrine and felony murder.

In this case it is undisputed that Zimmerman went out of his way to create the incident that eventually led to the shooting. Even if Martin eventually did something to legitimately and reasonably cause Zimmerman to fear for his life, Zimmerman can not claim self defense. The way I see it, it is Martin who is in the position to invoke the "Stand your ground" law, not the other way around.

c6601a
03-21-2012, 10:30
I've listened to it many times over. It's pretty clear what the first word is, but the second word is decidedly less clear. I've seen some pretty good arguments that the word is in fact "punks". I've heard it slowed down with noise reduction, and it definitely sounds like "punks" to me.The three possible explanations for the second word are "punks" "goons" and "coons"

I think we can agree that if we could conclusively decide what the first letter is, we can decide what the word is. Figuring out the first letter is actually fairly easy to do. Someone with access to the original uncompressed WAV file and the right software can easily differentiate between the three letters and I am sure the FBI is on it or already finished with it.

Unfortunately we can not do that with a MP3 file because a lot of the critical information is lost in the MP3 compression process.

quadraceryfz450
03-21-2012, 10:34
People are tired of putting up with crime in general. People are tired of being victimized. Unfortunately, some innocent individuals are paying for it with there lives. Life is far from perfect.

There was a recent car jacking committed in that area (miami gardens, fl) that left a young couple dead, and yet little media coverage compared to this matter.

We keep blaming guns, but the real problems are the criminals, and they come from all age groups.

IndyGunFreak
03-21-2012, 10:52
And that is where you are missing the point. Once a person decide to escalate or create a situation, which you concede that Zimmerman did, it does not matter who does the final bit of escalation. That is the basis for a lot of our laws, including the castle doctrine and felony murder

Not missing the point at all, I just disagree. I understand what you and most others are saying. And "escalate" was probably a bad choice of words on my part, because just following someone does not "escalate" a situation.

Misty02
03-21-2012, 11:07
Not exactly what I wanted you read, you know? :) I was hoping it would be different.

Yes, they can do that at any time during the statute of limitations. There is no statute of limitations for murder.

From a practical standpoint, the longer it is between the crime and the trial, the harder it is to get reliable testimony from witnesses. Recollections from 10 years ago are a lot less reliable and believable than recollections from 2 years ago. Witnesses can die or become unlocateable. Physical evidence can get misplaced or in some cases deteriorate. So it is best for the DA to move forward with the case as soon as practical.
No, it is not the same. Under the law, if a grand jury "no-bils" a case, the DA can come back with new evidence or even go to a different grand jury with the same evidence and can do that as many times as they want. In real life, a DA will never go back more than once or maybe twice because there will be a public outcry against it and that is not good for re-election.

I do know for a fact that in the 1990's, if a federal grand jury no-billed a case, the local US attorney had to get permission from the AG before going back to with more evidence or to a different grand jury. There was no law to that effect, just the justice department policy. That may be different now, but I doubt it.

High Altitude
03-21-2012, 11:17
And that is where you are missing the point. Once a person decide to escalate or create a situation, which you concede that Zimmerman did, it does not matter who does the final bit of escalation. That is the basis for a lot of our laws, including the castle doctrine and felony murder.

In this case it is undisputed that Zimmerman went out of his way to create the incident that eventually led to the shooting. Even if Martin eventually did something to legitimately and reasonably cause Zimmerman to fear for his life, Zimmerman can not claim self defense. The way I see it, it is Martin who is in the position to invoke the "Stand your ground" law, not the other way around.

But walking up to some one and asking, hey, what are you doing? is not against the law, not escalating the situation to a life or death situation. It doesn't matter what the 911 operator told him to do.

Now, no one but Zimmerman knows what happened up to the point of Trayvon beating him up. Did Zimmerman throw a punch, did he try to detain Trayvon? We don't know and will never know. There will be no way to show that Zimmerman started the fight etc... All we know is that Zimmerman walked up to him and that is that.

All that matters is determining right before the shot was fired, was Zimmerman in fear for his life and would a reasonable person think the same.

saxconnection
03-21-2012, 11:20
But walking up to some one and asking, hey, what are you doing? is not against the law, not escalating the situation to a life or death situation. It doesn't matter what the 911 operator told him to do.


^^This.

"We don't need you to do that.", is definitely not the same as, "Don't do that!"

Adam

IndyGunFreak
03-21-2012, 11:20
But walking up to some one and asking, hey, what are you doing? is not against the law, not escalating the situation to a life or death situation. It doesn't matter what the 911 operator told him to do.

Now, no one but Zimmerman knows what happened up to the point of Trayvon beating him up. Did Zimmerman throw a punch, did he try to detain Trayvon? We don't know and will never know. There will be no way to show that Zimmerman started the fight etc... All we know is that Zimmerman walked up to him and that is that.

All that matters is determining right before the shot was fired, was Zimmerman in fear for his life and would a reasonable person think the same.

Exactly.

kensteele
03-21-2012, 11:21
Keep in mind that the type of blood many want from this stone is not money. The payday being sought is not a padded bank account. Do civil cases work like criminal cases where after youíre exonerated you canít be brought to court again? Do you see the Brady Bunch or others facilitating attorneys, free of charge, to make an example of Zimmerman?

I was thinking last night. That last article posted from the end of February, which has received no further press and I hadnít read before yesterday where that witness described Zimmerman as the one at the bottom getting his rear handed to him. Could it possibly be that in spite everything else he might have done wrong, he didnít want to lay a hand on the kid and yelled for help so someone would get the kid off him? Could it be he didnít want to harm him? Could he have lacked the ability to restrain him and to prevent other injuries like the one that left him bleeding from his head and that is when he decided to use his firearm?

One article mentioned that Martin was 6í3Ē and 140 lbs. How difficult would it be to restrain a kid that size? If you invest your energy in preventing from being hit in lieu of fighting back, could it get to a point where you lack the strength to go further and then youíre in real trouble? Could it reach a point where a person may think ďif I donít do something quick this kid is going to kill meĒ?

The funny thing is that, in my mind, I can also understand why Martin (or anyone) might reach a point where they believe it is necessary to physically stop someone following them, they donít know what the personís intentions are.

Iíve never been in a physical fight either, so Iím not quite certain what is reasonable or possible.


.

Perhaps. So why not see if that story has legs but instead you have to make up a story about a teenage thug going for your weapon? (as was allegedly reported but not confirmed)

Something tells me that "the kid was beating up on me but I wasn't really hurt" or "I wasn't overly concerned but in the end, I used deadly force anyway" wasn't going to rise to the occasion.

I don't know this for sure but if you are in a fight and you choose not to fight back, does that give you more rights? I can see Zman allowing himself to be smacked around a little bit after all, you can't claim self-defense with no scratches, no bruises, and not a mark on you. Bravo Zman, well played.

would love to see those Sanford PD interview tapes.

Also I see some are convinced Martin was a vicious, criminal gangbanger with no rights to be left alone.

jack76590
03-21-2012, 11:28
Washington Post article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/who-is-george-zimmerman-more-information-emerges-about-the-shooter-of-trayvon-martin/2012/03/21/gIQA6muiRS_blog.html?hpid=z4

I found this quote from article especially interesting.

“He once caught a thief and an arrest was made,” Cynthia Wibker, secretary of the homeowners association, told the Herald. “He helped solve a lot of crimes.”

Exactly what Zimmerman did to catch a thief would be interesting. Did Zimmerman assume police powers and restrain the thief?

kensteele
03-21-2012, 11:39
But walking up to some one and asking, hey, what are you doing?

Depends.

How long have you been following?
Is the person suspicious of you when you walk up?
Did the person back away and you close the space even more quickly?
What were hands doing when you asked?
What was the tone of your voice?
What are the lighting condition?
Is the target facing you or is his back turned?
did you surprise the target?
Is the target on the phone?

I most certain think after all that happened between the two that lead up to the confrontation, the step from stalking to making [verbal] contact and his personal presence amounts to an escalation.

Even Zman knew the situation escalated at that point. That's why he got off the phone. You don't keep talking on the phone like you are sitting in a car when you are now just feet from your target and going into alert mode. And maybe, just maybe, Zman didn't want anyone else to hear what he is saying to Martin. I bet (and I don't know for sure) Zman words escalated the situation even more. C'mon you can't paint this picture that Martin freaked out and went off all by himself, nobody is buying that. You should be ashamed of yourself implying Martin caused his own death.

ATW525
03-21-2012, 11:43
Washington Post article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/who-is-george-zimmerman-more-information-emerges-about-the-shooter-of-trayvon-martin/2012/03/21/gIQA6muiRS_blog.html?hpid=z4

I found this quote from article especially interesting.

ďHe once caught a thief and an arrest was made,Ē Cynthia Wibker, secretary of the homeowners association, told the Herald. ďHe helped solve a lot of crimes.Ē

Exactly what Zimmerman did to catch a thief would be interesting. Did Zimmerman assume police powers and restrain the thief?

I believe I read elsewhere that he kept eyes on him in his car and fed directions to officers, but I could mistaken.

c6601a
03-21-2012, 11:45
But walking up to some one and asking, hey, what are you doing? is not against the law, not escalating the situation to a life or death situation. It doesn't matter what the 911 operator told him to do.Again, you are taking things out of context.

If you are walking down the street and see someone and ask them in a non-confrontational manner what they are doing, it is not creating a situation.

But in this case, Zimmerman is on tape saying that he believes the person is "acting suspicious" and is "on drugs" and has "something in his hand". After all that, when he decides to follow the person and confront him, he is intentionally walking into a situation that by his own statements he believes may lead to a confrontation. That is almost the definition of escalation.

What the dispatcher said is very relevant. You are right that the dispatcher is not in a position to order Zimmerman to do anything. But what the dispatcher does do is lay out what a "reasonable person" would do in the situation and more importantly, advise Zimmerman of that opinion. What gives the dispatcher's advise additional weight is that it is being offered in real time and is not the opinion of someone with the benefit and biases of hindsight.

This whole case is going to turn on what was reasonable, or what a "reasonable man" would do in that situation. The dispatcher's statement not only lays that out, but creates the situation that Zimmerman was advised of what was reasonable to do and he chose to do the exact opposite.

IndyGunFreak
03-21-2012, 11:45
It seems most of the neighborhood (if not all?) knew this guy was the self appointed "block captain" of the neighborhood crime watch.

Trayvon likely knew who he was being confronted by when all this started. When asked what he was doing, he could have responded with "Nothing, walking home" or "Mind your own business".. and kept walking.

Was Trayvon up to no good? Doesn't seem to be any evidence to support that. All we know, is a physical altercation occurred, Zimmerman was likely getting his butt kicked, and and Trayvon is dead.

Why it escalated to that, is pure conjecture.

IGF

Gary1911A1
03-21-2012, 11:49
And that is where you are missing the point. Once a person decide to escalate or create a situation, which you concede that Zimmerman did, it does not matter who does the final bit of escalation. That is the basis for a lot of our laws, including the castle doctrine and felony murder.

In this case it is undisputed that Zimmerman went out of his way to create the incident that eventually led to the shooting. Even if Martin eventually did something to legitimately and reasonably cause Zimmerman to fear for his life, Zimmerman can not claim self defense. The way I see it, it is Martin who is in the position to invoke the "Stand your ground" law, not the other way around.

I agree.

IndyGunFreak
03-21-2012, 11:51
This whole case is going to turn on what was reasonable, or what a "reasonable man" would do in that situation. The dispatcher's statement not only lays that out, but creates the situation that Zimmerman was advised of what was reasonable to do and he chose to do the exact opposite.

Recalling a case of yore... Joe Horn. He was told repeatedly not to confront the burglars by 911, and did anyway. Nothing came of that incident.

Not saying this is the same, but there are some similarities.
1. You have a citizen who sees someone doing what they believe to be illegal or suspicious.
2. They do the right thing, and call 911 and try to be a good witness.
3. For whatever reason, both individuals choose to either confront(Horn) or talk to (possibly Zimmerman) the people they have been observing.
4. Horn, confronts the burglars and almost immediately opens fire. Zimmerman ends up in a fight, is likely getting his butt kicked, and ends up killing the individual.

I'm a lot more comfortable with the Horn situation, because it was clear the deceased were committing burglary. However, asking someone "What are you doing".. doesn't give them the right to assault you.

High Altitude
03-21-2012, 11:52
But walking up to some one and asking, hey, what are you doing?

Depends.

How long have you been following?
Is the person suspicious of you when you walk up?
Did the person back away and you close the space even more quickly?
What were hands doing when you asked?
What was the tone of your voice?
What are the lighting condition?
Is the target facing you or is his back turned?
did you surprise the target?
Is the target on the phone?

I most certain think after all that happened between the two that lead up to the confrontation, the step from stalking to making [verbal] contact and his personal presence amounts to an escalation.

Even Zman knew the situation escalated at that point. That's why he got off the phone. You don't keep talking on the phone like you are sitting in a car when you are now just feet from your target and going into alert mode. And maybe, just maybe, Zman didn't want anyone else to hear what he is saying to Martin. I bet (and I don't know for sure) Zman words escalated the situation even more. C'mon you can't paint this picture that Martin freaked out and went off all by himself, nobody is buying that. You should be ashamed of yourself implying Martin caused his own death.

First there is no need to get so emotionally involved that you think I said that Martin caused his own death. I am simply having a discussion from a legal standpoint. There is Trayvon's version, Zimmerman's version, what actually happened, and what can be proved in a court of law which is all that really matters at this point.

Zimmerman could of ran up to him, grabbed him, told him don't move, the police are coming and if you try to get away I have a gun and will shoot you.

BUT

We don't know this and can't show this with evidence in a court of law. At least from the evidence that has been published.

Now someone following you is definitely enough to make anyone scared, but not scared enough to start beating someone up unless something else happens first to justify that.

Hopefully there is much more evidence and eyewitness testimony than what has been made public.

ATW525
03-21-2012, 11:54
I'd still like to know Zimmerman's side of the story. It seems really hard to judge a lot of the statements by witnesses without that context. For instance, the girlfriend's account of what she heard on the phone... we don't really know if that contradicts what George Zimmerman's statement says, or supports it.

cgjane
03-21-2012, 11:57
People are tired of putting up with crime in general. People are tired of being victimized. Unfortunately, some innocent individuals are paying for it with there lives. Life is far from perfect.

There was a recent car jacking committed in that area (miami gardens, fl) that left a young couple dead, and yet little media coverage compared to this matter.

We keep blaming guns, but the real problems are the criminals, and they come from all age groups.
Recalling a case of yore... Joe Horn. He was told repeatedly not to confront the burglars by 911, and did anyway. Nothing came of that incident.

Not saying this is the same, but there are some similarities.
1. You have a citizen who sees someone doing what they believe to be illegal or suspicious.
2. They do the right thing, and call 911 and try to be a good witness.
3. For whatever reason, both individuals choose to either confront(Horn) or talk to (possibly Zimmerman) the people they have been observing.
4. Horn, confronts the burglars and almost immediately opens fire. Zimmerman ends up in a fight, is likely getting his butt kicked, and ends up killing the individual.

I'm a lot more comfortable with the Horn situation, because it was clear the deceased were committing burglary. However, asking someone "What are you doing".. doesn't give them the right to assault you.



there was NO CRIMINAL in this case.

Only a kid with a bag of skittles and a drink.

IndyGunFreak
03-21-2012, 12:02
there was NO CRIMINAL in this case.

Only a kid with a bag of skittles and a drink.

At the very least, there was a fight between Zimmerman and Martin, and Martin was on top of Zimmerman. That's more than enough evidence to suggest assault.

cgjane
03-21-2012, 12:07
At the very least, there was a fight between Zimmerman and Martin, and Martin was on top of Zimmerman. That's more than enough evidence to suggest assault.

I see a kid defending himself from a perpetrator with a weapon, who was following him.

IndyGunFreak
03-21-2012, 12:12
I see a kid defending himself from a perpetrator with a weapon, who was following him.

Edit: Do you "defend yourself" against anyone who asks you "What are you doing" or "Where are you going".

What evidence do you have that he was defending himself. If he just punched him and moved along, I'd be more inclined to agree with you. However, several have said Martin was on top of Zimmerman. It's also unknown if Martin knew Zimmerman had a weapon, so again... saying he was defending himself from an armed perpetrator, is pure conjecture on your part.

Numismatist
03-21-2012, 12:17
I see a kid defending himself from a perpetrator with a weapon, who was following him.

Agreed...personally, I believe a CCW or other citizen has no right to pursue someone they think is a criminal then claim self-defense when a fight ensues. Now if the kid had walked up to Zman's car and started something, then that's another story - but that's not what happened.

The actual few seconds before the shot was fired may have been in self-defense, but Zman should have never allowed himself to get into that situation in the first place.

imho

High Altitude
03-21-2012, 12:22
Agreed...personally, I believe a CCW or other citizen has no right to pursue someone they think is a criminal then claim self-defense when a fight ensues. Now if the kid had walked up to Zman's car and started something, then that's another story - but that's not what happened.

The actual few seconds before the shot was fired may have been in self-defense, but Zman should have never allowed himself to get into that situation in the first place.

imho

I agree with you but that is not what the law says.

You can start the fight and if during the fight the other person takes it too far and puts your life in danger, you can defend yourself with lethal force.

The question is did this particular situation get to that point?

Zimmerman would have to be very physically hurt for me to believe this. A broken nose or some minor cuts is not going to cut it IMHO.

cgjane
03-21-2012, 12:24
Edit: Do you "defend yourself" against anyone who asks you "What are you doing" or "Where are you going".

What evidence do you have that he was defending himself. If he just punched him and moved along, I'd be more inclined to agree with you. However, several have said Martin was on top of Zimmerman. It's also unknown if Martin knew Zimmerman had a weapon, so again... saying he was defending himself from an armed perpetrator, is pure conjecture on your part.

how do YOU know Zman did not make first physical contact?

how do YOU know Zman did not try to restrain the kid?

all the "witnesses" (under quotes until I see them officially counted as witnesses in the court of law) can say all they want, but they only "saw" the altercation, not the point of first contact.

saying Zman was defending himself is pure conjecture on your part.

Numismatist
03-21-2012, 12:29
I agree with you but that is not what the law says.

You can start the fight and if during the fight the other person takes it too far and puts your life in danger, you can defend yourself with lethal force.

The question is did this particular situation get to that point?

Zimmerman would have to be very physically hurt for me to believe this. A broken nose or some minor cuts is not going to cut it IMHO.

Fair, I don't know Florida law; in Maine you would not be able to do this. No instigation allowed.

Sadly, this seems destined to affect gun rights (at least in Florida)...

cgjane
03-21-2012, 12:43
Sadly, this seems destined to affect gun rights (at least in Florida)...

And this is what really bothers me about the whole mess. Stand your ground will be repealed for us law abiding sane citizens

c6601a
03-21-2012, 13:12
You can start the fight and if during the fight the other person takes it too far and puts your life in danger, you can defend yourself with lethal force.If you keep believing that you will find yourself in jail for manslaughter. Whoever starts the fight can not claim self defense when it turns out that their intended victim was bigger/stronger than they had expected.

If you are the type who thinks it is OK to go around starting fights, please divest yourself of all your firearms. We do not need your to diminish all out gun rights because of your immature actions.

IndyGunFreak
03-21-2012, 13:15
how do YOU know Zman did not make first physical contact?

how do YOU know Zman did not try to restrain the kid?

all the "witnesses" (under quotes until I see them officially counted as witnesses in the court of law) can say all they want, but they only "saw" the altercation, not the point of first contact.

saying Zman was defending himself is pure conjecture on your part.

I don't, but I'm not the one making allegations he did. What has been released thus far, suggests Martin was on top of Zimmerman, period.

I didn't say he was defending himself, you are reading to much into what I'm saying rather than opening your eyes. I already said I have serious issues w/ this case. However, I'm not gonna just start saying things based on emotion like you have. I'm simply going off what has been put in the media rather than making accusations one way or the other.

Bren
03-21-2012, 13:22
Exactly what Zimmerman did to catch a thief would be interesting. Did Zimmerman assume police powers and restrain the thief?


Who knows, but it's worth mentioning that those "powers" being the property of the police is a fairly recent invention and it remains the law in most places that anybody can arrest for a felony.

c6601a
03-21-2012, 13:40
Who knows, but it's worth mentioning that those "powers" being the property of the police is a fairly recent invention and it remains the law in most places that anybody can arrest for a felony.Walking down the street, even when looking suspicious to the "reasonable" person, is not a felony.

Bren
03-21-2012, 13:46
Fair, I don't know Florida law; in Maine you would not be able to do this. No instigation allowed.


You are right about Maine, I believe. However, Maine deviated from what many other states adopted, from the ABA model penal code. Here and in some other places, you are not justified in using force in self defense if you start a fight, unless you start a fight with non-deadly force and the person responds with deadly force - then you regain the right to use force in self-defense.

Bren
03-21-2012, 13:47
Walking down the street, even when looking suspicious to the "reasonable" person, is not a felony.

The post I responded to was about a time when Zimmerman helped catch a thief - not about this case.

Numismatist
03-21-2012, 13:48
You are right about Maine, I believe. However, Maine deviated from what many other states adopted, from the ABA model penal code. Here and in some other places, you are not justified in using force in self defense if you start a fight, unless you start a fight with non-deadly force and the person responds with deadly force - then you regain the right to use force in self-defense.

Yup. In this instance, Zman went lookin' and he found a whole lot of it...right or wrong - he found it.

Interesting pickle the police/feds/DA are in: If they don't charge him, the 'people' will freak; if the DO charge him, and he's acquitted, the 'people' will freak even more.

High Altitude
03-21-2012, 14:08
If you keep believing that you will find yourself in jail for manslaughter. Whoever starts the fight can not claim self defense when it turns out that their intended victim was bigger/stronger than they had expected.

If you are the type who thinks it is OK to go around starting fights, please divest yourself of all your firearms. We do not need your to diminish all out gun rights because of your immature actions.

Where did I say I was this type????

First, I said that I agreed with the guy.

Second, I was only relaying what the law says. The actual statute is posted in this thread. Maybe you need to go look it up.


Lets say someone breaks into your house and has a gun/knife/baseball bat whatever............

You shoot, he runs and then you continue to run after him, shooting him as he runs away down the street.

You just went from being on the right side of the law to the wrong side. The person who broke into your house is now the victim and you will end up in court for using lethal force illegally.

Trayvon was on top of him, beating him, while Zimmerman was screaming for help.

At this point in the conflict, Zimmerman had no way to escape, no way to run away to protect himself etc.........

So at this particular time, right before he fired his gun, was his life in danger?

This is all that really matters.

Bren
03-21-2012, 14:34
Interesting pickle the police/feds/DA are in: If they don't charge him, the 'people' will freak; if the DO charge him, and he's acquitted, the 'people' will freak even more.

Some people will freak out no matter what happens, and then move on to something else to freak out about. I find the best way to deal with those people is to not make any effort to appease them - in fact, I usually like to instigate them. The worse they freak out, the less people take them seriously.

Sam Spade
03-21-2012, 14:35
First post on the thread, though I've been reading all along.

Some people are drawing a lot of conclusions, running many series of hypotheticals. That's going to tend to lock you into a point of view and make you selectively filter new information---bias confirmation.

Don't clutch too tightly at your ideas. There's tons of unknown stuff that can impact the outcome here.

blackjack
03-21-2012, 14:43
First post on the thread, though I've been reading all along.

Some people are drawing a lot of conclusions, running many series of hypotheticals. That's going to tend to lock you into a point of view and make you selectively filter new information---bias confirmation.

Don't clutch too tightly at your ideas. There's tons of unknown stuff that can impact the outcome here.

QFT and dittos to the max!!! Applies to all views on all sides here.

NMGlocker
03-21-2012, 14:52
The same agenda driven news people who manipulate stories and heavily edit the "facts" to support their agenda, or through complete ignorance or laziness get the facts completely wrong on a disturbingly regular basis.
We are to believe those news people are giving us the complete, untainted story with all the verified facts?
Yea right...
Hook line and sinker is what some of you people have swallowed.

Misty02
03-21-2012, 16:35
Stand Your Ground authors: Trayvon Martinís shooter should likely be charged, avoid immunity

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/20/2703579/state-senator-calls-for-hearings.html#storylink=cpy

Misty02
03-21-2012, 16:55
First post on the thread, though I've been reading all along.

Some people are drawing a lot of conclusions, running many series of hypotheticals. That's going to tend to lock you into a point of view and make you selectively filter new information---bias confirmation.

Don't clutch too tightly at your ideas. There's tons of unknown stuff that can impact the outcome here.

Iím guilty of that as much as anyone, more assumptions than conclusion per se, but itís been mainly for the purpose of better understand and getting to a place where I can ask pertinent questions.

Meanwhile, the author of the law in one sentence gives the appearance that stand your ground will not apply here; in the other states he doesnít have all the facts. Either way, Gov Scott is talking about reviewing the law and we may end up with some changes to it, I doubt they would be favorable, time will tell.

.

EmbryRiddle
03-21-2012, 17:08
Recalling a case of yore... Joe Horn. He was told repeatedly not to confront the burglars by 911, and did anyway. Nothing came of that incident.

Not saying this is the same, but there are some similarities.
1. You have a citizen who sees someone doing what they believe to be illegal or suspicious.
2. They do the right thing, and call 911 and try to be a good witness.
3. For whatever reason, both individuals choose to either confront(Horn) or talk to (possibly Zimmerman) the people they have been observing.
4. Horn, confronts the burglars and almost immediately opens fire. Zimmerman ends up in a fight, is likely getting his butt kicked, and ends up killing the individual.

I'm a lot more comfortable with the Horn situation, because it was clear the deceased were committing burglary. However, asking someone "What are you doing".. doesn't give them the right to assault you.

and that is probably why there is so much discussion going on about this case...why was Martin "suspicious"? Horn was protecting his neighbor's property, what was Martin doing?

kensteele
03-21-2012, 17:13
First there is no need to get so emotionally involved that you think I said that Martin caused his own death. I am simply having a discussion from a legal standpoint. There is Trayvon's version, Zimmerman's version, what actually happened, and what can be proved in a court of law which is all that really matters at this point.

Agreed, I apologise it was unfair to throw that in during the discussion.

CitizenOfDreams
03-21-2012, 17:17
I've listened to it many times over. It's pretty clear what the first word is, but the second word is decidedly less clear. I've seen some pretty good arguments that the word is in fact "punks". I've heard it slowed down with noise reduction, and it definitely sounds like "punks" to me.

nevermind, I was thinking about a different part of the recording.

That "racial slur" part sounds to me more like "cones" (as in traffic cones). On the other hand, I'm not a native English speaker. Here is a slightly better quality file, as close to the source as I could get:
http://home.citizenofdreams.com/gt/cones.mp3

EmbryRiddle
03-21-2012, 17:53
nevermind, I was thinking about a different part of the recording.

That "racial slur" part sounds to me more like "cones" (as in traffic cones). On the other hand, I'm not a native English speaker. Here is a slightly better quality file, as close to the source as I could get:
http://home.citizenofdreams.com/gt/cones.mp3

cones sounds like "coons"

Bruce M
03-21-2012, 17:53
Question – must the police disclose to the family everything they know? Is it possible that a lot more is known to them than what has been disclosed thus far?

.

No. What is known has to be given to the defense at discovery here in state courts (some courts do not have discovery) and the process for that is usually by depositions and requests for reports, etc.

I think you are mistaken.

He or she must reasonably believe doesn't mean he or she believes it is reasonable. It means the belief must be reasonable, as in, what a reasonable person would believe.

Randy


I would hope you are correct. However I would think that if the statute said something to the effect of what a reasonable person reasonably believes that might be clearer than the way it is written.


No I want him to stay in jail until the decision is reached by that state just like all the other folks have to wait in jail. If you're going to let his remain free in the meantime because he has a good excuse, you need to let others who have a good excuse remain free as well. I have no problem with that. But we all know that isn't the way the department operates so it's too late for that, hence the outcry.



...

In some places once he is charged he may well stay in jail until trial. I believe that incarcerating someone before they are charged may create some other issues. And may be a path we really do not want to go down here in our nation. If we start doing that in effect anyone might be tried in a court of public opinion.

Bruce M
03-21-2012, 18:04
Have to disagree with you on this one. If Zimmerman is arrested a cash bond may well be required for his release pending trial. If Zimmerman or his family have the cash they can post the bond. If unable to post the total amount of the bond from their own resources, then they may have enough to go to bail bondsman. I think they charge something like 10% of the total bond - I think others on forum may have more knowledge. But that 10% or whatever percent is gone and not refunded.

All money spend on bonds is not available to hire an attorney. Yes, maybe he would get a court appointed attorney. Yes that court ordered attorney, MAY be competent. But Zimmerman will need a lot of experts to have a chance of winning in my opinion - experts to analysis 911 calls, juror selection experts, use of force experts, etc.

At the end of the day I doubt if Zimmerman has assets that total up to $20,000. He really does not have much to worry about re civil suit. Yes, some lawyer may take a civil case on contingency, which pays the lawyer about a third of the amount recovered, if any. And you can't recover assets that are not there. For Zimmerman bankruptcy is a minor concern.

But ending up in prison unable to make bail, given the racial tensions this case has generated, is a life and death concern for Zimmerman.


In some jurisdictions some crimes such as murder or occupied burglary are non-bondable offenses. I am not sure if that is true there, but it seems to happen sporadically here.

I am reminded of the guy in Milwaukee who seemed to have a noticeably short trial. Others have disagreed with me but I believe he had a lack of experts testifying on his behalf and I still suspect that was a financial issue.

And if (when) there is a civil action I would guess that the homeowners association and possibly Crime Watch may end up being (deeper pocketed, possibly insured) co-defendants.

kensteele
03-21-2012, 18:08
In some places once he is charged he may well stay in jail until trial. I believe that incarcerating someone before they are charged may create some other issues. And may be a path we really do not want to go down here in our nation. If we start doing that in effect anyone might be tried in a court of public opinion.

Everyone deserves the opportunity to bail out except unless you are a traitor, capital murderer, a terrorist, or a non-native high flight risk; make bail and pull your case together. Just treat Zman the way you would treat any other shooter you have in custody who has confessed. Hold them (for the maximum allowed), pull your information together and then file charges.

IMO with what little knowledge I have and very little facts of the incident, the appropriate charge is 2nd degree murder.

Edit: forgot the include the child sex offenses (remembered from link below)....no bond.

kensteele
03-21-2012, 18:11
Sanford Commission Votes 'No Confidence' In Chief Lee (http://www.wesh.com/news/30734271/detail.html#ixzz1pndrnj6K)

Bruce M
03-21-2012, 18:14
Actually it appears that if one is charged with a capital crime or a crime punishable by life imprisonment, and there is sufficient probable cause, one may not be entitled to bond. Here is an interesting primer regarding this http://www.ericmathenylaw.com/Criminal-Defense-Blog/2010/October/Non-Bondable-Offenses.aspx

And then tbis explains the Arthur Hearing process http://www.pdmiami.com/when_will_i_get_out_of_jail.htm

High Altitude
03-21-2012, 18:25
Sanford Commission Votes 'No Confidence' In Chief Lee (http://www.wesh.com/news/30734271/detail.html#ixzz1pndrnj6K)

The last part is interesting.

If Zimmerman was told not to continue to follow Trayvon, can that be considered in this
investigation?
Yes it will; however, the telecommunications call taker asked Zimmerman “are you following
him”. Zimmerman replied, “yes”. The call taker stated “you don’t need to do that”. The call
taker’s suggestion is not a lawful order that Mr. Zimmerman would be required to follow.
Zimmerman’s statement was that he had lost sight of Trayvon and was returning to his truck to
meet the police officer when he says he was attacked by Trayvon.

kensteele
03-21-2012, 18:29
^yes, i read that. first i am hearing it. i don't know how i can believe that but again i wasn't there. i thought i remember zman asking the "call taker" to have police call him and zman will let the police know where he ends up and where they can find him. interesting. could it be that zman lost martin, gave up, started heading back and martin came out of nowhere to attack him with his back turned? let's see what the witness say about that.

Tiro Fijo
03-21-2012, 18:36
...IMO with what little knowledge I have and very little facts of the incident, the appropriate charge is 2nd degree murder...


Which is exactly why you should never serve on a jury as throughout this thread you have shown complete subjectivity due to the race of the deceased despite having little to no facts.

The DA is bound by the law & not public opinion (in theory). So it does not matter what one "thinks" or "supposes" as that is nothing but proseltyzing and contray to the rule of law on which the judicial system is based.

Do a little digging on the Internet and you will see that the deceased was not the innocent little angel that the Leftist Press has made him out to be. Hopefully, this will all come out in the wash.

kensteele
03-21-2012, 19:35
Do a little digging on the Internet and you will see that the deceased was not the innocent little angel that the Leftist Press has made him out to be. Hopefully, this will all come out in the wash.

double talk.

RussP
03-21-2012, 19:57
Do a little digging on the Internet and you will see that the deceased was not the innocent little angel that the Leftist Press has made him out to be. Hopefully, this will all come out in the wash.How certain are you the information you found is for this Trayvon Martin? We had a link posted earlier in the thread for a different Trayvon Martin, a very different life style.

Please send me the links you have via PM.

Thanks

Linh40
03-21-2012, 19:58
Stand Your Ground authors: Trayvon Martinís shooter should likely be charged, avoid immunity

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/20/2703579/state-senator-calls-for-hearings.html#storylink=cpy

Totally agree, cause if what zman did was part of "stand your ground" then what zman did was a perfect way to murder someone legally. Maybe what zman did was self defense but it set up the frame work for other to "legally" murder someone and claim self defense.

1. Stalk someone
2. get in a fight
3. make sure no witness
4. shoot them
5. When police show up, show them your ccw and tell them it was self defense.

I mean if this guy who previously resisted arrest or got in some scuffle with the police had a "clean record" then for most people that really do have a clean record the cops would just accept self defense.

Cause then let's all go down to a neighborhood and get in a fight and then shoot the other person and claim self defense.

As far as the kid beating him up well like 99% of the population would if someone was stalking them and then approaches them with a gun.

Well zman made a couple of mistakes while the kid was trying to defend himself. The two thing that zman did right was call the police and have a ccw and the rest of what he did was downhill.

High Altitude
03-21-2012, 19:59
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-zimmerman-letter-20120315,0,1716605.story

High Altitude
03-21-2012, 20:03
http://sanfordfl.gov/investigation/trayvon_martin.html

High Altitude
03-21-2012, 20:04
http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin%20Lakes%20Shooting%20Initial%20Report.pdf

NMGlocker
03-21-2012, 20:51
Ask yourself why the only pictures the media will publish are of him when he was what 13 years old?
The information I've seen has Trayvon listed as 6' tall and 160#.
6' 160# is a full grown man physically.

Linh40
03-21-2012, 21:12
Ask yourself why the only pictures the media will publish are of him when he was what 13 years old?
The information I've seen has Trayvon listed as 6' tall and 160#.
6' 160# is a full grown man physically.

well if I was his parents and I wanted public support then I would use the 13 yo photo as well.

carguy2244
03-21-2012, 21:18
Zimm pursued Martin.

Therefore, "self defense" isn't a viable defense.

The pursuer is precluded by law from claiming "self defense".

If its determined that Zimm was the aggressor in the encounter, the correct charge is 1st degree murder.

If its determined that Zimm was not the aggressor, the correct charge would be voluntary manslaughter.

Under no circumstance can you pursue an unarmed individual, shoot them, kill them, and be protected by "self defense".

High Altitude
03-21-2012, 21:24
Zimm pursued Martin.

Therefore, "self defense" isn't a viable defense.

The pursuer is precluded by law from claiming "self defense".

If its determined that Zimm was the aggressor in the encounter, the correct charge is 1st degree murder.

If its determined that Zimm was not the aggressor, the correct charge would be voluntary manslaughter.

Under no circumstance can you pursue an unarmed individual, shoot them, kill them, and be protected by "self defense".

I take it you haven't read the entire thread.

1st deg is premeditated. Do you know what you are talking about?

noway
03-21-2012, 21:24
Zimm pursued Martin.

Therefore, "self defense" isn't a viable defense.

The pursuer is precluded by law from claiming "self defense".

If its determined that Zimm was the aggressor in the encounter, the correct charge is 1st degree murder.

If its determined that Zimm was not the aggressor, the correct charge would be voluntary manslaughter.

Under no circumstance can you pursue an unarmed individual, shoot them, kill them, and be protected by "self defense".

bingo

And now things are even hotter. I see charges being forced on zman. This could be interesting.

kensteele
03-21-2012, 21:41
Ask yourself why the only pictures the media will publish are of him when he was what 13 years old?
The information I've seen has Trayvon listed as 6' tall and 160#.
6' 160# is a full grown man physically.

You're wasting your time. You gotta come better than that.

EmbryRiddle
03-21-2012, 21:50
You're wasting your time. You gotta come better than that.

:lol:

Mr. Blandings
03-21-2012, 23:04
The thoughts of attorney Jon Gutmacher, author of Florida Firearms: Law, Use & Ownership (http://floridafirearmslaw.com/):WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 2012
The Trayvon Martin - George Zimmerman Shooting and "Stand Your Ground" law.
The Trayvon Martin - George Zimmerman Shooting and the Stand Your Ground Law
by jon gutmacher

The death of Trayvon Martin in a shooting by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in Sanford, Florida has reached circus proportions – largely because of a lack of information from the police, and a plethora of mis-information about the "Stand Your Ground" law. Let me try to set some things straight from a legal and practical standpoint.

First – while a grand jury will hear the case in April – there is no law that prevented the Sanford Police Department from releasing information on why no arrest was made. True – the Public Records Law would “protect” the police department from releasing that information – but it never “forbade” the release of that information – especially if the release would be in the best interest of the public. It’s been obvious that the staunch refusal to do that – has blown this case totally out of proportion, and caused it to go “viral” on a national level. In my opinion – this continued "behind closed doors" attitude was and continues to be a serious mistake on the part of law enforcement, and information needs to be released as to why an arrest was not initially made.

Next – let's talk about the “Stand your Ground Law”.

Contrary to all the anti-gun hype – this law does not protect George Zimmerman if he was the aggressor. In fact – if he misused his firearm – the law is quite clear that he is looking at a MINIMUM mandatory prison sentence of 25 years – and as much as LIFE imprisonment! That’s mandatory, folks – and every day of the 25 years must be served if convicted! No early release. No parole. Sound like the “easy gun laws” everyone is complaining about on TV? Twenty five years to life??? No way!

The facts are that the "Stand Your Ground" law simply says that if you have an objectively reasonable belief that you are in imminent danger (ie: “immediate”) of death or a substantially serious injury (ie: “great bodily harm”) , or there is a reasonably objective belief that a forcible felony is taking place, AND it appears reasonable to use deadly force in the situation – then deadly force may be used, and you need not retreat before using deadly force. But . . . if you make an unreasonable decision or unreasonable mistake in judgment – then -- go directly to jail – for a long, long time!

The only thing the “Stand Your Ground Law” really changed from earlier law was to correct a serious problem in the self defense law – because forcing someone to retreat in the myriad of impossible situations that arose in self defense – and especially in trying to stop a forcible felony – made it very difficult to legally defend yourself no matter how justified the lethal force situation was. Quite frankly, Florida law is a lot tougher on penalties than most other states -- and is very similar to the self defense laws of other states -- except that the "retreat rule" has been eliminated. (which -- is also the trend, and has been passed in many other states besides Florida).

So. . . was George Zimmerman acting lawfully? Damn if I know – quite frankly – doesn’t look good for George at this point. But, without the vital information that you would expect to have been released weeks ago – we’re all standing out here guessing – and worst of all – the anti-gunners, and those who can gain something by being in the media spotlight – are having a field day with misinformation about our laws – and your rights.

Spread the word! This is not a copyrighted article -- and you have full permission to use it anyway you like.
POSTED BY JON H. GUTMACHER AT 4:45 AM
LABELS: GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, SANFORD NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH SHOOTING, STAND YOUR GROUND LAW, TRAYVON MARTINSource: http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=Criminal-Lawyer-Blog&Store_Code=FFL

donthelegend
03-22-2012, 00:18
Zimm pursued Martin.

Therefore, "self defense" isn't a viable defense.

The pursuer is precluded by law from claiming "self defense".

If its determined that Zimm was the aggressor in the encounter, the correct charge is 1st degree murder.

If its determined that Zimm was not the aggressor, the correct charge would be voluntary manslaughter.

Under no circumstance can you pursue an unarmed individual, shoot them, kill them, and be protected by "self defense".

Wrong. The statutes have already been posted and under Florida law, yes you can.

If in between pursuing them and shooting them you escalate, then de-escalate and try to withdraw, but your attacker continues with what you believe to be deadly force, you can shoot them. (I'm not trying to argue about the details of whether or not that happened in this case, just illustrating a point).

I hope the real story comes out and justice is served accordingly. But no matter how much you don't like it or how unfair it may seem, you can't can't charge someone, much less convict them when there simply isn't any evidence, regardless of how guilty they may actually be.

The public outcry over him not being arrested immediately is moronic. The whole basis of our legal system, innocent until proven guilty, is supposed to guarantee exactly what happened, but because someone didn't like it, and they played the race card, this is suddenly a national issue.

Mr. Blandings
03-22-2012, 04:35
The Sandford City Manager has released an FAQ letter with answers from Police Chief Lee: http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf

Also, the city has created a webpage where 911 calls and other information regarding the shooting have been posted: http://sanfordfl.gov/investigation/trayvon_martin.html

Bren
03-22-2012, 05:01
Sanford Commission Votes 'No Confidence' In Chief Lee (http://www.wesh.com/news/30734271/detail.html#ixzz1pndrnj6K)

Wow - so the real idiots in the story are the Sanford city commission?:rofl:

That's just plain silly.:upeyes:

Want proof I'm right? This one even explains the legal reasons the police were right in handling the case:
The Sandford City Manager has released an FAQ letter with answers from Police Chief Lee: http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf

Also, the city has created a webpage where 911 calls and other information regarding the shooting have been posted: http://sanfordfl.gov/investigation/trayvon_martin.html

At best, the case could be presented to a grand jury, although Zimmerman is presumed to be justified and without probable cause to believe that he is not justifi9ed, even a grand jury presentation may be prohibited under their statutes. We copied it, here in KY and it allows no arrest or proescution for a person who claims to have acted in sefl defense, without PC to show he didn't.

Come to think of it, that statute, prohibiting lawsuits and making the plaintiff pay his attorney fees may also save Zimmerman from the civil action.

Bren
03-22-2012, 05:07
Totally agree, cause if what zman did was part of "stand your ground" then what zman did was a perfect way to murder someone legally. Maybe what zman did was self defense but it set up the frame work for other to "legally" murder someone and claim self defense.

1. Stalk someone
2. get in a fight
3. make sure no witness
4. shoot them
5. When police show up, show them your ccw and tell them it was self defense.


You could do that anywhere - "stand your ground" didn't change the justification for use of force in Florida and it's still higher than some states. You can lie about the justification in all 50.

Misty02
03-22-2012, 05:09
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/46814688/#46814688

reporter: also tonight here, police are saying for the first time that they believe that zimmerman did not confront and pursue martin. that zimmerman had returned to his car and was waiting for police and that martin, the teenager, attacked him. that's why they're sticking to their conclusion that zimmerman acted in self defense

.

Misty02
03-22-2012, 05:21
Wow - so the real idiots in the story are the Sanford city commission?:rofl:

That's just plain silly.:upeyes:

Want proof I'm right? This one even explains the legal reasons the police were right in handling the case:


At best, the case could be presented to a grand jury, although Zimmerman is presumed to be justified and without probable cause to believe that he is not justifi9ed, even a grand jury presentation may be prohibited under their statutes. We copied it, here in KY and it allows no arrest or proescution for a person who claims to have acted in sefl defense, without PC to show he didn't.

Come to think of it, that statute, prohibiting lawsuits and making the plaintiff pay his attorney fees may also save Zimmerman from the civil action.

And here is the page where the PD has provided updates: http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.html

ATW525
03-22-2012, 06:58
Thankfully for the Chief, the city manager seems like a level headed guy. Still it won't surprise me if he loses his job, even if it is shown that was no wrong doing by the Department.

Anyways, from the FAQ it sounds like Zimmerman's story is similar to what I was imagining after hearing the unedited version of his phone call. That being that he was no longer pursuing Trayvon Martin, and was focused on getting to place to meet the arriving officer when the confrontation occurred.

Misty02
03-22-2012, 08:00
You know, it is not outside the realm of possibilities that Zimmerman was on the phone with the dispatcher until the very moment and that they have more of the puzzle than anyone imagines.

.

220-9er
03-22-2012, 08:05
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/46814688/#46814688

reporter: also tonight here, police are saying for the first time that they believe that zimmerman did not confront and pursue martin. that zimmerman had returned to his car and was waiting for police and that martin, the teenager, attacked him. that's why they're sticking to their conclusion that zimmerman acted in self defense

.Well that sure is news.
But didn't the 911 callers say he was on his back on the grass behind their houses? Wasn't Zimmerman supposed to be on his back in the grass with Treyvon over him and hitting him?
How can this be if he is sitting inside his truck waiting for the police to arrive?

TBO
03-22-2012, 08:29
Civil Rights Leaders Call On Florida Governor To Suspend George Zimmermanís Concealed Carry Permit (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/21/449414/florida-governor-suspend-zimmermans-concealed-carry-permit/)

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/21/449414/florida-governor-suspend-zimmermans-concealed-carry-permit/?mobile=nc


http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Group-wants-George-Zimmerman-s-gun-rights-revoked/-/1637132/9652160/-/eporys/-/


http://www.wesh.com/hometest/30730980/detail.html
-----------


Florida Refuses to Suspend Gun License of Trayvon Martinís Shooter

http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/03/florida_refuses_to_suspend_trayvon_martins_killers_gun_license_too.html

ATW525
03-22-2012, 08:45
Well that sure is news.
But didn't the 911 callers say he was on his back on the grass behind their houses? Wasn't Zimmerman supposed to be on his back in the grass with Treyvon over him and hitting him?
How can this be if he is sitting inside his truck waiting for the police to arrive?

The police are saying he was returning to his car, not the he had already returned to it. That appears to be a fiction of the reporter.

Misty02
03-22-2012, 08:47
Well that sure is news.
But didn't the 911 callers say he was on his back on the grass behind their houses? Wasn't Zimmerman supposed to be on his back in the grass with Treyvon over him and hitting him?
How can this be if he is sitting inside his truck waiting for the police to arrive?


The number of possibilities and assumptions are endless, and that is all mine are. It is possible he had returned or was in the process of going back to his vehicle when Martin approached him.

It all goes back to not having left his vehicle in the first place, the one piece in the entire puzzle that in its absence, I'm nearly certain the results would have likely been different. That is one part he controlled, his actions were (at best) inappropriate. After that, I donít know enough to make up my mind as to whose actions were inappropriate and when those took place. Inappropriate, negligent of stupid are not to be confused with illegal.

.

Misty02
03-22-2012, 09:04
Civil Rights Leaders Call On Florida Governor To Suspend George Zimmermanís Concealed Carry Permit (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/21/449414/florida-governor-suspend-zimmermans-concealed-carry-permit/)

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/21/449414/florida-governor-suspend-zimmermans-concealed-carry-permit/?mobile=nc


http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Group-wants-George-Zimmerman-s-gun-rights-revoked/-/1637132/9652160/-/eporys/-/


http://www.wesh.com/hometest/30730980/detail.html
-----------


Florida Refuses to Suspend Gun License of Trayvon Martinís Shooter

http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/03/florida_refuses_to_suspend_trayvon_martins_killers_gun_license_too.html

People are running on 100% emotion and very low in logic or reason. I can understand how devastated the family and the community is but to ignore the premise of ďinnocent until proven guiltyĒ and wanting rights revoked before a person is convicted of a crime (or at least have some solid evidence a crime was committed) seems not very prudent. When did two wrong make a right?

Justice and being fair seems to be what many call for. What is just and fair for one, wonít be for the other and at times justice (at least as described by the legal system) might not be fair to either, at least as perceived by the affected individuals.

.

RussP
03-22-2012, 09:20
People are running on 100% emotion and very low in logic or reason.

.Emotion is an addictive and dangerous 'drug'...

Bren
03-22-2012, 09:25
So all the state agencies, police, prosecutors, etc., are yet to point to any wrongdoing by Zimmerman, yet the people with no direct knowledge or access to the investigation, both in Florida and on Glock Talk, want him prosecuted and/or burned at the stake.

Doesn't seem at all hard to tell whose decision is based on more actual knowledge of the case.

ijacek
03-22-2012, 09:26
Hi-jack alert!

Everybody is at arms for Trayvon and rightfully so, but what about others?

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/local/pinellas/was-shooting-self-defense-03072012

Where is Sharpton and all other activist groups demanding justice for Brandon Baker?

hamster
03-22-2012, 09:33
People are running on 100% emotion and very low in logic or reason. I can understand how devastated the family and the community is but to ignore the premise of ďinnocent until proven guiltyĒ and wanting rights revoked before a person is convicted of a crime (or at least have some solid evidence a crime was committed) seems not very prudent. When did two wrong make a right?

Justice and being fair seems to be what many call for. What is just and fair for one, wonít be for the other and at times justice (at least as described by the legal system) might not be fair to either, at least as perceived by the affected individuals.

.

The outrage in this case isn't about if Zimmerman will be convicted or not. The outrage is that it seems there may well be no trail. I feel like there is enough probable cause based on the evidence in the 911 tapes and from witnesses to warrant at least an in-depth investigation and a trial.

ATW525
03-22-2012, 09:36
People are running on 100% emotion and very low in logic or reason. I can understand how devastated the family and the community is but to ignore the premise of ďinnocent until proven guiltyĒ and wanting rights revoked before a person is convicted of a crime (or at least have some solid evidence a crime was committed) seems not very prudent. When did two wrong make a right?

Justice and being fair seems to be what many call for. What is just and fair for one, wonít be for the other and at times justice (at least as described by the legal system) might not be fair to either, at least as perceived by the affected individuals.

.

Elsewhere on the Internet I have seen people say stuff that is downright scary. One of my favorites was the notion that even allowing Zimmerman to tell his side of the story is insensitive to the victim, so it shouldn't be allowed.

RussP
03-22-2012, 09:37
Hi-jack alert!

Everybody is at arms for Trayvon and rightfully so, but what about others?

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/local/pinellas/was-shooting-self-defense-03072012

Where is Sharpton and all other activist groups demanding justice for Brandon Baker?Interesting and controversial, but not that similar to the circumstances surrounding this topic.

If anyone wants to discuss it, please start a new thread.

Thanks...

RussP
03-22-2012, 10:16
Has this been posted... Zimmerman Domestic Violence in 2002-2005 (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-george-zimmerman-domestic-violence-20120321,0,5472535.story)

Patchman
03-22-2012, 10:24
The Martin family was in NYC protesting their son's death.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21/trayvon-martin-million-hoodie-march_n_1371403.html

saxconnection
03-22-2012, 10:26
Interesting and controversial, but not that similar to the circumstances surrounding this topic.

If anyone wants to discuss it, please start a new thread.

Thanks...
One already exists, RussP : http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1408092

RussP
03-22-2012, 10:43
Hi-jack alert!

Everybody is at arms for Trayvon and rightfully so, but what about others?

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/local/pinellas/was-shooting-self-defense-03072012

Where is Sharpton and all other activist groups demanding justice for Brandon Baker?

Interesting and controversial, but not that similar to the circumstances surrounding this topic.

If anyone wants to discuss it, please start a new thread.

Thanks...

One already exists, RussP : http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1408092:embarassed: And I posted in the thread...:faint:

hamster
03-22-2012, 10:47
Inappropriate, negligent of stupid are not to be confused with illegal.

Absolutely. It is my contention that the act of stalking T around the neighborhood may not have been technically illegal, but it DOES negate Z's right to play the "innocent victim" who had to defend himself.

He willingly put himself into the confrontation, thus doesn't have any "ground " to "stand" on.

donthelegend
03-22-2012, 10:57
Absolutely. It is my contention that the act of stalking T around the neighborhood may not have been technically illegal, but it DOES negate Z's right to play the "innocent victim" who had to defend himself.

He willingly put himself into the confrontation, thus doesn't have any "ground " to "stand" on.

Again, under Florida law, that is not the case. Also, this really doesn't have anything to do with stand your ground. This is pretty simply about whether or not Zman was justified in shooting Martin or not, which is more about who had the upper hand at the time of the shooting, and did Zman have a reasonable fear for his life to justify his shooting of Martin.

Sure, stand your ground is part of determining if you can shoot or not, but we aren't arguing about whether or not he stood his ground and was justified in that, we're arguing about whether or not he reasonably feared for his life and therefore was justified in using deadly force.

220-9er
03-22-2012, 11:19
Again, under Florida law, that is not the case. Also, this really doesn't have anything to do with stand your ground. This is pretty simply about whether or not Zman was justified in shooting Martin or not, which is more about who had the upper hand at the time of the shooting, and did Zman have a reasonable fear for his life to justify his shooting of Martin.

Sure, stand your ground is part of determining if you can shoot or not, but we aren't arguing about whether or not he stood his ground and was justified in that, we're arguing about whether or not he reasonably feared for his life and therefore was justified in using deadly force.

It's still about who was the initial aggressor. If it was Zimmerman, and Treyvon was the one defending himself, then Treyvon could continue defending himself until the threat had stopped. Clearly it had not at that point.
You can't go to rob a bank and then claim self defense if the guard pulls a gun and you have to shoot him to save your own life. Same principal here..

donthelegend
03-22-2012, 11:23
It's still about who was the initial aggressor. If it was Zimmerman, and Treyvon was the one defending himself, then Treyvon could continue defending himself until the threat had stopped. Clearly it had not at that point.
You can't go to rob a bank and then claim self defense if the guard pulls a gun and you have to shoot him to save your own life. Same principal here..

Robbing a bank is a forcible felony and falls under a different part of the statute. If at any point Zimmerman tried to withdraw and Martin came after him with deadly force, Zimmerman is justified.

I am in no way saying that is what happened, but just trying to point out that if things happened that way, then Zimmerman would be justified.

Edit: Here is the statue posted earlier in the thread

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.


Section 2 initially starts out with him technically being the aggressor, having gotten out of his vehicle, the downside is that with the possible witness saying he was yelling help and the deceased continued beating him may unfortunately cause section (b) to determine his actions to be justified.

Bren
03-22-2012, 11:43
Absolutely. It is my contention that the act of stalking T around the neighborhood may not have been technically illegal, but it DOES negate Z's right to play the "innocent victim" who had to defend himself.

He willingly put himself into the confrontation, thus doesn't have any "ground " to "stand" on.

The law does not agree with you, anywhere I know of. Here, the court would say that the issue of justification is decided based on the moment you used force and, except for starting the fight by using force yourself, the stupid things you do to lead up to the need to use force do not take away your justification (yes, I have successfully used that argument in court in multiple cases, because people always claim the police caused the problem that led to a criminal being shot).

c6601a
03-22-2012, 11:57
Also, this really doesn't have anything to do with stand your ground.Finally, a few of the legal talking heads on TV are starting to point this out. With the usual herd mentality, I hope that will become the prevailing view in the not too distant future.

Misty02
03-22-2012, 12:15
So all the state agencies, police, prosecutors, etc., are yet to point to any wrongdoing by Zimmerman, yet the people with no direct knowledge or access to the investigation, both in Florida and on Glock Talk, want him prosecuted and/or burned at the stake.

Doesn't seem at all hard to tell whose decision is based on more actual knowledge of the case.

Commissioners call for Sanford police chief to resign


http://cfnews13.com/content/news/articles/cfn/2012/3/21/trayvon_martin_suppo.html



Might as well throw in a sacrificial lamb to appease the masses. (but that won't be enough)

.

ATW525
03-22-2012, 12:59
Commissioners call for Sanford police chief to resign


http://cfnews13.com/content/news/articles/cfn/2012/3/21/trayvon_martin_suppo.html



Might as well throw in a sacrificial lamb to appease the masses. (but that won't be enough)

.

You can always count on elected officials to make informed, level headed decisions after reviewing all the facts, rather than emotional knee jerk reactions based on incomplete information. </sarcasm>

At least the politicians at the state level who wrote the laws and understand the intricacies of self defense aren't jumping to conclusions without all the facts:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-_n_1371171.html

Oops... looks like I closed the sarcasm tag too soon.

Misty02
03-22-2012, 13:17
The outrage in this case isn't about if Zimmerman will be convicted or not. The outrage is that it seems there may well be no trail. I feel like there is enough probable cause based on the evidence in the 911 tapes and from witnesses to warrant at least an in-depth investigation and a trial.

Before there is a conviction there has to be a trial, before there is a trial there has to be an arrest, before there can be an arrest there has to be evidence of criminal conduct.

It is not what we believe, itís not even what we know, itís what they have as evidence and what can be proven.

.

Misty02
03-22-2012, 13:25
Has this been posted... Zimmerman Domestic Violence in 2002-2005 (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-george-zimmerman-domestic-violence-20120321,0,5472535.story)


I canít remember what I read where any more. I know I read this, but donít know if it is posted in this thread, sowwy... :embarassed:

.

RussP
03-22-2012, 13:44
Police Chief has stepped down...

c6601a
03-22-2012, 13:59
Police Chief has stepped down...Maybe not. According to CNN, he is only "temporarily stepping aside"

Shark1007
03-22-2012, 14:00
Looking at the posts above and the new story on the domestic violence injunction having been issued, I wonder how the guy had a permit. Don't the ATF forms ask if you've ever had a dv injunction?

Not sure on this.

ATW525
03-22-2012, 14:04
Looking at the posts above and the new story on the domestic violence injunction having been issued, I wonder how the guy had a permit. Don't the ATF forms ask if you've ever had a dv injunction?

Not sure on this.

The disqualifying criteria is a conviction of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (obviously a felony would also be disqualifying), or being currently subject to a restraining order. It doesn't sounds like he was convicted of a crime, and I doubt he's the subject of a restraining order this many years later.

RussP
03-22-2012, 14:05
Looking at the posts above and the new story on the domestic violence injunction having been issued, I wonder how the guy had a permit. Don't the ATF forms ask if you've ever had a dv injunction?

Not sure on this.From my earlier link...Protective injunctions were later ordered in response to both petitions. Both injunctions expired Aug. 24, 2006.

Bren
03-22-2012, 14:12
In a new low of politics catering to stupid people:
Sanford police chief 'temporarily' steps downhttp://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/22/sanford-police-chief-temporarily-steps-down/?hpt=hp_c1

In the comments, there was a mention of a Trayvon rally in Indianapolis. :upeyes:

Bren
03-22-2012, 14:14
Did Trayvon Martin's shooter use a racial slur? (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/21/did-trayvon-martins-shooter-use-a-racial-slur/?hpt=hp_c1)

The shocking answer?

Nobody knows.




But they sure hope he did.

(If you have ever worked with sampling and music recording, you'll probably have an idea how stupid this is - similar to Ozzy and the Beatles backward tracking).

SpringerTGO
03-22-2012, 14:25
There's lots of talk about Z being an idiot, etc. And without knowing all the facts, there's no way to really say.
Was someone on neighborhood watch really in the wrong for following a suspicious person in the neighborhood, and calling 911?
T also had a phone. Could he have called 911 too, if he was really concerned about being "stalked"?
If someone was stalking me, and I had a cell phone in my hand, I would call 911. I doubt I would engage that person, but I'm also not 16.
If Z got out of his car to engage T, that would have been a mistake. But if 911 told him to leave, and he was attempting to, and T escalated the situation, is Z guilty of murder?

redbaron007
03-22-2012, 14:33
Civil Rights Leaders Call On Florida Governor To Suspend George Zimmermanís Concealed Carry Permit (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/21/449414/florida-governor-suspend-zimmermans-concealed-carry-permit/)

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/21/449414/florida-governor-suspend-zimmermans-concealed-carry-permit/?mobile=nc


http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Group-wants-George-Zimmerman-s-gun-rights-revoked/-/1637132/9652160/-/eporys/-/


http://www.wesh.com/hometest/30730980/detail.html
-----------


Florida Refuses to Suspend Gun License of Trayvon Martinís Shooter

http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/03/florida_refuses_to_suspend_trayvon_martins_killers_gun_license_too.html


The emotionalist's don't understand there is a process for one to obtain their CCW; and the same for suspending the license.

If it is done just because of the emotions; there is no rule of law. Here is the pdf (http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/cw_license_eligibility_requirements_web.pdf)for disqualifying conditions. A process is in place to remove it; the demands by emotional mobs isn't it.

:wavey:

red

dosei
03-22-2012, 15:00
Did Trayvon Martin's shooter use a racial slur? (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/21/did-trayvon-martins-shooter-use-a-racial-slur/?hpt=hp_c1)

The shocking answer?

Nobody knows.




But they sure hope he did.

(If you have ever worked with sampling and music recording, you'll probably have an idea how stupid this is - similar to Ozzy and the Beatles backward tracking).

...counter question...

Did Trayvon Martin use a racial slur while on the phone with his girlfriend...(like kracker, honky, white bread, ect.)...and would that make the can of butt-whooping he had opened up and was giving to Zimmerman a "Hate Crime"...?

Semantics...and rather irrelevant...IMHO...

EmbryRiddle
03-22-2012, 15:20
...counter question...

Did Trayvon Martin use a racial slur while on the phone with his girlfriend...(like kracker, honky, white bread, ect.)...and would that make the can of butt-whooping he had opened up and was giving to Zimmerman a "Hate Crime"...?

Semantics...and rather irrelevant...IMHO...

yep, justifiable by killing him...:upeyes:

ijacek
03-22-2012, 15:53
Did Trayvon Martin's shooter use a racial slur? (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/21/did-trayvon-martins-shooter-use-a-racial-slur/?hpt=hp_c1)

The shocking answer?

Nobody knows.




But they sure hope he did.

(If you have ever worked with sampling and music recording, you'll probably have an idea how stupid this is - similar to Ozzy and the Beatles backward tracking).


CNN first tells you that they will let you listen without saying what that racial slur is and play it once without isolating it (01:49 mark), then they replay just the 1.6 seconds 10 times over, but not before "tinting" the mind with the word you listening for (02:03 mark). Consider your sources and question the media.

BTW experts are in sync that it sounds like "F@#$ing PUNKS"

kensteele
03-22-2012, 16:23
Thankfully for the Chief, the city manager seems like a level headed guy. Still it won't surprise me if he loses his job, even if it is shown that was no wrong doing by the Department.

Anyways, from the FAQ it sounds like Zimmerman's story is similar to what I was imagining after hearing the unedited version of his phone call. That being that he was no longer pursuing Trayvon Martin, and was focused on getting to place to meet the arriving officer when the confrontation occurred.

Unfortunately the Chief is not out based on the guilt or innocent of the parties. He is out because he dropped the football while he was carrying it on behalf of the community. The city needs someone who can speak with confidence and act with leadership and gain the respect of the council. We'll see who else can pickup the ball or step up to the plate during this crisis and "handle" it. At this point, I think everyone is ready to be patient until a real "thorough" investigation is completed. I can't speak to whether they will like the results or not.

kensteele
03-22-2012, 16:33
[QUOTE=Bren;18743246]So all the state agencies, police, prosecutors, etc., are yet to point to any wrongdoing by Zimmerman, .../QUOTE]

The authorities probably already know if there is anything incriminating. They just haven't said it aloud or publically or they refuse to. Let me interpret it for you just in case you didn't get it from day one: When the community suggests a cover-up, that means they believe you know the [bad] truth on day one but you pretend like you "are yet to point to any wrongdoing" or you falsely say you have reviewed everything and you have found nothing. The community is not claiming they know anything, they are saying the police won't lift a finger to try to figure out what is under their own nose....right or wrong.

What would you suggest the community to do to seek justice if the police won't take action? If you don't already know, the answer shall be found in America's past history, just take a peek, it's there and it's clear what you have to do if you expect justice.

Flintlocker
03-22-2012, 17:12
CNN first tells you that they will let you listen without saying what that racial slur is and play it once without isolating it (01:49 mark), then they replay just the 1.6 seconds 10 times over, but not before "tinting" the mind with the word you listening for (02:03 mark). Consider your sources and question the media.

BTW experts are in sync that it sounds like "F@#$ing PUNKS"

Which experts are those? I've listened to the following video a few times and I clearly hear an "oo" sound. It sounds like coons to me.

DIAGNOSTIC: George Zimmerman Clearly says "****ing Coons" Before Killing Trayvon Martin - YouTube

Perhaps it's a difference of dialects. However Zimmerman clearly doesn't have a southern accent. Do people in the south pronounce it "poonks"?

ATW525
03-22-2012, 17:20
Special Prosecutor appointed:

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpps/news/special-prosecutor-appointed-in-trayvon-martin-investigation-dpgonc-km-20120322_18754096

ATW525
03-22-2012, 17:30
Wikipedia page for Angela Corey, the newly assigned Special Prosecutor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Corey

G30Mike
03-22-2012, 18:03
CNN first tells you that they will let you listen without saying what that racial slur is and play it once without isolating it (01:49 mark), then they replay just the 1.6 seconds 10 times over, but not before "tinting" the mind with the word you listening for (02:03 mark). Consider your sources and question the media.

BTW experts are in sync that it sounds like "F@#$ing PUNKS"

I listened to it a few times as well. He says it pretty much as soon as he gets out of the car with kind of a whisper and almost like he's a bit winded. Sounds like "*******ing punks" to me. My girlfriend isn't following this story, so I played it for her and asked her what she thinks he's saying. She agrees that he's saying punks as well.

Pardoner
03-22-2012, 18:22
I think this pretty much answers the important questions.


http://news.yahoo.com/video/orlandowesh-16122564/sanford-police-speak-out-in-trayvon-martin-case-28640523.html

ATW525
03-22-2012, 18:27
I think this pretty much answers the important questions.


http://news.yahoo.com/video/orlandowesh-16122564/sanford-police-speak-out-in-trayvon-martin-case-28640523.html


It seems it doesn't, since it's almost a week later and there is no end in sight.

Misty02
03-22-2012, 18:32
Which experts are those? I've listened to the following video a few times and I clearly hear an "oo" sound. It sounds like coons to me.

DIAGNOSTIC: George Zimmerman Clearly says "****ing Coons" Before Killing Trayvon Martin - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGuctYqCDvo)

Perhaps it's a difference of dialects. However Zimmerman clearly doesn't have a southern accent. Do people in the south pronounce it "poonks"?

Zimmerman is Hispanic. If he was raised in a household where Spanish was the predominant language odds are he has an accent and quite likely difficulties with some words.

I got married in the US, all my children were born in the US. We spoke mostly Spanish at home to ensure they were bilingual (got 2 out of 3 to speak Spanish well). All three have a peculiar accent. Mine people canít place at all, I learned English from a British person and took me over a year to get rid of Spanish accent and speak the Spanish others in Florida speak. There are words that regardless how hard I try I canít pronounce.


.

kensteele
03-22-2012, 18:37
The experts at the FBI will assign the proper word that is used, no need to get all bent out of shape about what it sounds like to you.

RussP
03-22-2012, 18:43
The experts at the FBI will assign the proper word that is used, no need to get all bent out of shape about what it sounds like to you.:thumbsup:

RussP
03-22-2012, 18:46
More on Zimmerman...George Zimmerman, the Man Who Shot Trayvon Martin, Profiled by Family and Neighbors (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/21/george-zimmerman-the-man-who-shot-trayvon-martin-profiled-by-family-and-neighbors.html)

Misty02
03-22-2012, 18:50
More on Zimmerman...George Zimmerman, the Man Who Shot Trayvon Martin, Profiled by Family and Neighbors (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/21/george-zimmerman-the-man-who-shot-trayvon-martin-profiled-by-family-and-neighbors.html)

Would it not be politically correct to state the heritage/race/nationality of both? Zimmerman the Hispanic-American and Martin the African-American

.

ATW525
03-22-2012, 19:09
Possibly George Zimmerman in the foreground?

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/275872_100002908788382_1397790303_n.jpg

ballr4lyf
03-22-2012, 19:34
Based on what's been presented so far, I still say that this was a bad shoot. There is no disparity of force involved. In fact, Zman looks to be a tad heavier than the 160# that Martin is listed as being. Just because you're getting your arse kicked is not a defense for taking a life.

That being said, if this were to go to trial, and I was on the jury, presented with just the information that has been released, I would have to vote NOT guilty... There is just not enough evidence available to reverse an "innocent until proven guilty" point of view.

High Altitude
03-22-2012, 19:53
IMO, Zimmerman is going to be convicted eventually no matter what.

If not the state trial, the federal trial that will definitely happen if he isn't convicted from the state.

All the special interest groups, liberal politicians and media, and most of the country simply will not stop until this guy is hung out to dry no matter what the evidence shows.

Bruce M
03-22-2012, 20:06
..

If not the state trial, the federal trial that will definitely happen if he isn't convicted from the state.

...

Does anyone know what he would be charged with in Federal Court?

Tiro Fijo
03-22-2012, 20:18
I think this pretty much answers the important questions.


http://news.yahoo.com/video/orlandowesh-16122564/sanford-police-speak-out-in-trayvon-martin-case-28640523.html


We have a winner. The voice screaming on the tape is NOT the deceased as identified by his own father.

vkscott
03-22-2012, 20:33
People are running on 100% emotion and very low in logic or reason. I can understand how devastated the family and the community is but to ignore the premise of ďinnocent until proven guiltyĒ and wanting rights revoked before a person is convicted of a crime (or at least have some solid evidence a crime was committed) seems not very prudent. When did two wrong make a right?

Justice and being fair seems to be what many call for. What is just and fair for one, wonít be for the other and at times justice (at least as described by the legal system) might not be fair to either, at least as perceived by the affected individuals.



.

I believe I read in Ofc. Smith's report, his handgun was taken in as evidence but I haven't heard if it has been returned.

IndyGunFreak
03-22-2012, 20:45
Which experts are those? I've listened to the following video a few times and I clearly hear an "oo" sound. It sounds like coons to me.

DIAGNOSTIC: George Zimmerman Clearly says "****ing Coons" Before Killing Trayvon Martin - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGuctYqCDvo)

Perhaps it's a difference of dialects. However Zimmerman clearly doesn't have a southern accent. Do people in the south pronounce it "poonks"?

It's hard to tell, to me, there's clearly a "P" at the beginning.

vkscott
03-22-2012, 20:45
Has this been posted... Zimmerman Domestic Violence in 2002-2005 (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-george-zimmerman-domestic-violence-20120321,0,5472535.story)

I'm not sure but aren't these petition akin to a restraining order? If so, isn't that one of the questions one has to answer to purchase a handgun and wouldn't that be a disqualifying factor in obtaining a CHL?

ATW525
03-22-2012, 20:52
I'm not sure but aren't these petition akin to a restraining order? If so, isn't that one of the questions one has to answer to purchase a handgun and wouldn't that be a disqualifying factor in obtaining a CHL?

The prohibition only lasts while the orders are in effect. They expired in 2006.

vkscott
03-22-2012, 20:54
It's still about who was the initial aggressor. If it was Zimmerman, and Treyvon was the one defending himself, then Treyvon could continue defending himself until the threat had stopped. Clearly it had not at that point.
You can't go to rob a bank and then claim self defense if the guard pulls a gun and you have to shoot him to save your own life. Same principal here..

Not the same principle. Using your analogy, robbing a bank is a felony, asking someone what are you doing here is not.

Misty02
03-22-2012, 21:01
IMO, Zimmerman is going to be convicted eventually no matter what.

If not the state trial, the federal trial that will definitely happen if he isn't convicted from the state.

All the special interest groups, liberal politicians and media, and most of the country simply will not stop until this guy is hung out to dry no matter what the evidence shows.

That seems like a great possibility.

.

EmbryRiddle
03-22-2012, 21:05
That seems like a great possibility.

.

it just sucks, two lives are ruined over nothing

vkscott
03-22-2012, 21:09
There's lots of talk about Z being an idiot, etc. And without knowing all the facts, there's no way to really say.
Was someone on neighborhood watch really in the wrong for following a suspicious person in the neighborhood, and calling 911?
T also had a phone. Could he have called 911 too, if he was really concerned about being "stalked"?
If someone was stalking me, and I had a cell phone in my hand, I would call 911. I doubt I would engage that person, but I'm also not 16.
If Z got out of his car to engage T, that would have been a mistake. But if 911 told him to leave, and he was attempting to, and T escalated the situation, is Z guilty of murder?

One of the first responding LEO's report stated that Zimmerman was on a personal errand when the incident occurred. I have a TX CHL and am the coordinator for my subdivision's NWP. If on my way home from Wally World, I witness an event where the use of deadly force is justified, will I be labeled as on duty patrolling my neighborhood? I certainly hope not.

RussP
03-22-2012, 21:24
I believe I read in Ofc. Smith's report, his handgun was taken in as evidence but I haven't heard if it has been returned.I do believe it is standard evidence procedure most everywhere to take the weapon and retain it until the case is closed.

vkscott
03-22-2012, 21:37
I listened to it a few times as well. He says it pretty much as soon as he gets out of the car with kind of a whisper and almost like he's a bit winded. Sounds like "*******ing punks" to me. My girlfriend isn't following this story, so I played it for her and asked her what she thinks he's saying. She agrees that he's saying punks as well.

I vote punks

Misty02
03-22-2012, 21:46
Does anyone know what he would be charged with in Federal Court?

I donít think it matters as long as he is charged with something. If they can make the racial thing stick, would a hate crime fall under their jurisdiction?


We have a winner. The voice screaming on the tape is NOT the deceased as identified by his own father.

There is an article, possibly here, where it states the father said that originally; however, after they cleaned up the audio he stated that it was his son. Soon after there were other articles mentioning his son crying out for his life or something to that effect.


I believe I read in Ofc. Smith's report, his handgun was taken in as evidence but I haven't heard if it has been returned.

I havenít read that myself, but itís quite possible. There are so many articles out there that there is no way I could have read them all.


it just sucks, two lives are ruined over nothing

That is indeed a great tragedy and one I believe could have been prevented. It is also the reason why we must discuss cases like this and the Scott case, so that neither us or people we know end up making similar mistakes. One cost a man his life, the other the life of a kid. The stakes are very high!

.

ATW525
03-22-2012, 21:58
I just noticed this from an article RussP posted earlier in the thread:

The next year, he struggled with credit-card payments to Capital One, ultimately reaching a settlement for $2,135.82. Capital One later reported that Zimmerman was failing in his payments.

Seriously?? Is not enough to brand the guy a racist murderer before all the facts have even made public? The media needs to drag out his credit history, too?

Misty02
03-22-2012, 22:23
I just noticed this from an article RussP posted earlier in the thread:



Seriously?? Is not enough to brand the guy a racist murderer before all the facts have even made public? The media needs to drag out his credit history, too?

That is multiple articles. When I first read it I wondered if there werenít some privacy laws with credit information, then I dismissed it as not the worst thing this guy is going through thus not as important.

I expect to see his medical history soon.

.

TBO
03-22-2012, 22:24
It is a good lesson on what can happen when the spotlight/magnifying glass is turned on a person.

Misty02
03-22-2012, 22:25
If by a miracle he is found not guilty and allowed to remain free, how can someone like him ever sleep at night again not knowing if someone is going to do something to him or his family?

.

Glocksanity
03-22-2012, 22:52
If by a miracle he is found not guilty and allowed to remain free, how can someone like him ever sleep at night again not knowing if someone is going to do something to him or his family?

.

If you ask me, the wannabe-cop doesn't deserve another good night's sleep. All he had to do was wait for the real cops to show up and do the job they are trained to do. But no. He had to play cop with a teenager walking down the street eating skittles and drinking iced tea.

05DodgeDakota
03-22-2012, 23:09
It was mentioned that there is still a major piece of evidence they are withholding from the public that is in favor of zimmerman.

BTW, here is a link to the major paper in the sanford/orlando area that has many articles devoted to the case:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/topic/PEOCVC000188.topic

Edit:

Here is the quote:
He would not discuss it, but Pat Whitaker, chief of operations at the State Attorney's Office in Sanford, said Thursday night that the case's key evidence has not yet been made public.
"There's just so much more to it that has not been disclosed," he said. "What you have is not the crucial evidence."

Misty02
03-22-2012, 23:09
If you ask me, the wannabe-cop doesn't deserve another good night's sleep. All he had to do was wait for the real cops to show up and do the job they are trained to do. But no. He had to play cop with a teenager walking down the street eating skittles and drinking iced tea.

And I can't say I disagree with that either.

.

05DodgeDakota
03-22-2012, 23:10
If you ask me, the wannabe-cop doesn't deserve another good night's sleep. All he had to do was wait for the real cops to show up and do the job they are trained to do. But no. He had to play cop with a teenager walking down the street eating skittles and drinking iced tea.

you just keep drinkin' the Kool-Aid their buddy lol

Misty02
03-23-2012, 00:01
It is a good lesson on what can happen when the spotlight/magnifying glass is turned on a person.

That is one heck of magnifying glass too!

Personally I believe Zimmerman is at least guilty of exiting the vehicle, when it was not wise to do so. I donít know if his other actions are criminal or not. I do wonder; however, should it come out that things are not like people assume and he is not guilty, would they feel remorse at having destroyed the man without knowing all the facts first?

.