BBM
An unknown person goes on to a porch at dusk, pulls up a hoodie covering his face, in a suburb of the US city with the
THIRD HIGHEST crime rate in the country looks suspicious to me. Why would he have to go to the porch to pull the hoodie up? It's not as though he stood there waiting to dry, or the rain to subside. By the description, he walked under the porch, pulled the hoodie up, and returned to the street. I could see how an observer would take that as suspicious.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/02/16/the-11-most-dangerous-cities
Tray ducks under a random porch to avoid the rain and put his hoodie up, then goes back to the sidewalk to start walking towards home again.
Taking it as suspicious and calling LE, allowing them to do their job, is one thing. Stalking and then, with gun in hand, chasing down someone you feel is suspicious, but isn't doing anything illegal, is another.
But I don't believe Trayvon was doing anything suspicious at all. Isn't it coming from Zimmerman, that Trayvon was standing on someone's porch? I don't believe a word from that man's mouth. He is a LE officer wanna be, who clearly hates black people, and took it upon himself to be law enforcement, judge, jury and executioner.
I can read between the lines. He's good, Zimmerman. he knew exactly what to say to set up what he felt would be a justifiable homicide. But his "facts" seem very contrived to me and I am certain he is lying.
The only thing suspicious that Trayvon did was be black.
I'd like to also add... the GF's testimony is crucial, because according to GZ, TM ran away, which led to many people, espcially on here question, how did GZ catch a 17 YO athelete. It must have been Tray who confronted Zimmerman, because he could of easily escaped as he continued to run.
Well there you have it... he never ran, thus GZ was able to catch him quite easily, especially with him Tray being on the phone. I think most of what GZ told police initially... was a lie. Tray never walked towards him, Tray never ran away, his hands probably never went to his waistband in a threatening manner. Can't wait to see how GZ fairs in prison.
I agree.
Yes, last night I listened to numerous versions of the 911 call. From youtube, to miamiherald, to wftv, etc... because I wanted to make sure it wasn't somehow edited in by someone. It's clearly on the all of them.
Can you post the calls again?
That's what I thought! Something is seriously wrong here that he claimed self defense and apparently the police accepted it and let him go. Sounds like a good ol' boy network or something. I have NEVER heard of this just being accepted - it always has to go to court and be argued, especially if the person who was killed was unarmed! Shoot, if it were you or me, we'd have to prove it in court! I think some heads are going to roll in that police department when all is said and done.
That police department is known for its racism.
I can say very confidently we would welcome any outside entity that wants to come look at what we did, Lee said last week. They are welcome to come here and look at it. We have not done anything but conduct a fair and complete investigation.
Read more here:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/...with-trayvon.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy
I am usually a staunch and fierce defender and fan of Law Enforcement. I cannot say that I find the chief's assurances at all comforting.
A full investigation would involve actually asking the shooter some tough questions, gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses and neighbors, none of which apparently happened here. oh and not "correcting" witness testimony in official police reports, which reportedly DID happen.
Again, huge supporter of LE in general, not of this department though. I really think they flubbed this thing, badly.
I think they flubbed it purposefully. They decided a little street justice for the crime of being black was, if not okay, understandable.
Isn't that the same chief who already said that Tray didn't have a right to jump GZ simply because he was asked if he lives there? Seems the chief was judge and jury in a matter of minutes, no actual investigation was necessary.
How can it can be that now it's being said that GZ was jumped from behind while he was simply walking back to his car after looking for the street address, when Lee said that GZ asked Trayzon if he lived there????
This chief disgusts me. He stated that Zimmerman wishes he had done things differently and is sure Trayvon wishes he had too. REally? Like what? What are you supposed to do if you are a kid, taught to beware of strangers, and find some scary guy is stalking you on a dark street, and then chases you with a gun? What, pray tell, was Trayvon supposed to do? He tried to get away from a murderer, IMO. His bad act was being black, nothing more.
So your saying that the pursuit is the "unlawful activity" that negates the self-defense claim?
No. I think that when you stalk someone, chase someone down and then threaten them with a gun, if attacked, you have incited the attack and the law would not apply, period.
But, BTW, I don't think Trayvon attacked this man at all. The girlfriends' statements prove that. Instead, after being stalked, chased and threatened, Zimmerman pushed him, to try to incite him to do something that would justify gunplay. Trayvon then fought back. And in such a case, not only was the attack incited, Zimmerman attacked first, so the law would not apply.
If it did, as others have stated on here, that would mean that a serial killer can stalk and attack a woman and if she fought back, he could kill her justifiably, under the law. No way is the law going to be interpreted that way.
Jjenny is right to be concerned about this law. She's certainly not the only one. Clearly, the police used the law to let a murderer go free. But laws are interpreted by judges in rulings when there is doubt. This law is not going to be interpreted in Zimmerman's favor. It would open too large a can of worms.
Here's a bit of info from wikipedia explaining:
Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts interpret and apply legislation. Some amount of interpretation is always necessary when a case involves a statute. Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and straightforward meaning. But in many cases, there is some ambiguity or vagueness in the words of the statute that must be resolved by the judge. To find the meanings of statutes, judges use various tools and methods of statutory interpretation, including traditional canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and purpose. In common law jurisdictions, the judiciary may apply rules of statutory interpretation to legislation enacted by the legislature or to delegated legislation such as administrative agency regulations.
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation"]Statutory interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
