17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #25

daisy7 said:

For Mars Inc., the privately held company that owns Skittles, the tragedy presents another, more surreal dimension. Protestors carried bags of the chewy fruit-flavored candy while marching for the arrest of shooter George Zimmerman. Mourners pinned the bright red wrappers to their hooded sweatshirts at memorial services.

(snip)

http://www.pnj.com/article/20120415/BUSINESS/204150309/1003?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

Click to expand...

Ironically Mars, Inc. had been a sponsor of ALEC, the political organization that has promoted the Stand Your Ground laws. Since the Trayvon Martin case, they as well as other corporations have dropped their support for ALEC:

“Mars had been an exhibitor at ALEC’s 2011 annual meeting in New Orleans. Mars is the maker of Skittles, the snack Trayvon Martin had purchased before he was shot by George Zimmerman, whose arrest was delayed due to an NRA-backed gun law that became an ALEC ‘model’ bill,” the Center for Media and Democracy adds.

Martin’s death brought attention to Florida’s GOP-sponsored “Stand Your Ground” law, which states that “a person is justified in the use of deadly force” if “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.”

More:http://coloradoindependent.com/118045/alec-continues-to-lose-corporate-supporters

Click to expand...

jjenny said:

Well in all the discussions about this law I haven't seen anyone else interpreting it that way. The law itself doesn't have the words "forcible felony" in it. If it was so very clear why aren't these words in the law?

Click to expand...

So you are going to argue with an elected official about this? I mean, seriously, even the authors of the bill itself says it doesn't apply in this case as well as the governor who signed the bill into law.


~jmo~

gxm said:

Another member, can't recall if it was Papa or Doc, offered an interesting point. GZ was a frequent 911 caller and perhaps, on previous occasions, other "suspicious persons" had disappeared before LE arrived. IMO, that's the most plausible reason I've heard as to why GZ might have decided to follow and detain TM. There's still room for reasonable doubt, but that's the closest to convincing I've heard yet.

But, IMO, even with the reholstering of his weapon which, although I'm not a gun owner, I presume becomes an automatic response, GZ's behavior after shooting TM can be explained by shock. IMO, GZ is still in shock. He looked so small and meek standing before the judge, and as one commenter noted "gone." And if he can claim a head injury, he may be able to get anything he said to the cops tossed out (at least that's what others have suggested, not sure if it's within FL's legal limits). I know my crazy ex-DIL successfully used a head injury as an excuse for a hit and run in DC.

IMO, the SP needs a lot more evidence than what's revealed in the charging documents if she wants to nail him with murder 2. Her case seems pretty weak to me, so I hope she's hiding her aces.

JMO, OMO, and :moo:

Click to expand...

He wasn't going to let him get away this time.

GZ: These a-holes, they always get away. -----------------------S**t he's running.--------------------------Dispatcher: He's running, which way is he running?------------------------------GZ: The back entrance.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7715220&postcount=41"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - FL - 17-yo Teen Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #4[/ame]

Adrienne37 said:

So you are going to argue with an elected official about this? I mean, seriously, even the authors of the bill itself says it doesn't apply in this case as well as the governor who signed the bill into law.


~jmo~

Click to expand...

The person can prevent bodily injury/death OR commission of forcible felony under this law. So if she says the only way to use this law is to prevent forcible felony how is that accurate?

Adrienne37 said:

I think Ms. Corey knows very well how to interpret the law.

COREY: “Nancy, our laws are very clear that it has to be a forcible felony and that a reasonable person would have to believe that deadly force is necessary as opposed to just physical force, fighting back and that sort of thing.

Based on what Corey is saying, Zimmerman is going to have a hard time proving that Trayvon was committing a forcible felony that justified his actions. I suspect Zimmerman better have plenty of medical documentation to back up his claim.

~jmo~

Click to expand...

It's not forcible felony AND that a reasonable person would have to believe... It's a forcible felony OR that a reasonable person would have to believe...
So again if she claims one can use SYG only to prevent forcible felony how is that correct?

Anyone anywhere can just simply say they "feared for their life" after killing someone? If that is really what the law says... it needs to be changed, ASAP!

I understand if someone has entered a private home or business illegally because the fear would be there. That person is obviously there to commit a crime that could result in death of great bodily harm. I have no problem with people protecting themselves against intruders.

However... Trayvon was not an intruder. He had just as much right to be there as George Zimmerman.

When George was in the safety of his own car and on the phone with LE, why didn't he, when Trayvon was "walking towards him", introduce himself as neighborhood watch and ask Trayvon if he had just moved in? It would have been that simple! I believe Trayvon would have nicely answered back that he was visiting his soon-to-be step mom? Or maybe he would have been offended and told him that it was none of his business? At least George would be in his car and LE would have gotten it on tape and when they got there... LE could deal with Trayvon?

The fact that George got out of his car to follow Trayvon and the fact that he hung up with LE while following Trayvon tells me that George Zimmerman had no fear of Trayvon! You know the kid that had "something in his pocket" and was "checking out George" and looked to be "on drugs?"

On the other hand, we know from Trayvon's girlfriend, that Trayvon was "worried" about this guy following him. He also tells her on the phone "he's right behind me again." (not verbatim) and that is when he says "Why are you following me?" and George replies "What are you doing here?" *** NOTE: I believe this is when George put his hands on Trayvon or at least made it known that he had a gun... which would make sense with the "pushing" sounds and the phone going dead.

Trayvon, IMO, feared for his life and rightfully so. He was the only one protecting himself from death of great bodily harm as we have all come to know he really did have a reason to fear those things.

MOO

jjenny said:

The person can prevent bodily injury/death OR commission of forcible felony under this law. So if she says the only way to use this law is to prevent forcible felony how is that accurate?

Click to expand...

I look at it like this, she is the attorney, this is what she says, she has successfully prosecuted multiple cases of stand your ground including the one that she discussed in this article. It's not up to me, a layman, to interpret the law. There has been much discussion about this issue, I found this article, and posted it. It's not up to any of us to decide this case. We do not have all the details that either side will have so how can any of us make a determination, especially when we aren't attorneys ourselves? All I know is that both authors of the bill as well as the governor who signed it into law clearly states that this case doesn't fall under Stand Your Ground because Zimmerman was the pursuer. This law doesn't give anyone the right to chase another person down and murder them.


~jmo~

Adrienne37 said:

I look at it like this, she is the attorney, this is what she says, she has successfully prosecuted multiple cases of stand your ground including the one that she discussed in this article. It's not up to me, a layman, to interpret the law. There has been much discussion about this issue, I found this article, and posted it. It's not up to any of us to decide this case. We do not have all the details that either side will have so how can any of us make a determination, especially when we aren't attorneys ourselves? All I know is that both authors of the bill as well as the governor who signed it into law clearly states that this case doesn't fall under Stand Your Ground because Zimmerman was the pursuer. This law doesn't give anyone the right to chase another person down and murder them.


~jmo~

Click to expand...

I really don't know what is there to interpret. Anybody who can read can read this law and see that it says one can use deadly force if one reasonably believes its necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm OR the commission of forcible felony. OR. Not and. Not only. Forcible felony is separate from death/great bodily injury and I am pretty sure that the part that Zimmerman will say applies to him is preventing death/great bodily harm and not "forcible felony."
What is there to interpret? Anyone that can read should be able to figure out what it says. One doesn't need a law degree for that. Jury will not have law degrees. I am reasonably certain I am not any more stupid than members of this jury that will have understand what the law says.

jjenny said:

I really don't know what is there to interpret. Anybody who can read can read this law and see that it says one can use deadly force if one reasonably believes its necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury OR the commission of forcible felony. OR. Not and. Not only. Forcible felony is separate from death/great bodily injury and I am pretty sure that the part that Zimmerman will say applies to him is preventing death/bodily injury and not "forcible felony."
What is there to interpret? Anyone that can read should be able to figure out what it says. One doesn't need a law degree for that. Jury will not have law degrees. I am reasonably certain I am not any more stupid than members of this jury that will have understand what the law says.

Click to expand...

It doesn't say or - it says and.....

“Nancy, our laws are very clear that it has to be a forcible felony and that a reasonable person would have to believe that deadly force is necessary as opposed to just physical force, fighting back and that sort of thing. I’ve prosecuted a woman who shot her husband and killed him because he slapped her, and we argued that was not deadly force and she was convicted and sent to state prison.”

Adrienne37 said:

It doesn't say or - it says and.....

“Nancy, our laws are very clear that it has to be a forcible felony and that a reasonable person would have to believe that deadly force is necessary as opposed to just physical force, fighting back and that sort of thing. I’ve prosecuted a woman who shot her husband and killed him because he slapped her, and we argued that was not deadly force and she was convicted and sent to state prison.”

Click to expand...

Please read what the actual law says and not what AC said.
The actual law says OR. Separate thing one can prevent. Yes, one can use this law to prevent imminent commission of forcible felony but that is a separate issue from death/great bodily harm.

"(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..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

Between this:

On Friday, the Daily News obtained EMS documents suggesting Zimmerman, who an ex-colleague said was fired from a security job for being too aggressive, did not sustain serious injuries in the fatal encounter.

Paperwork detailing the EMS response to the shooting scene shows that a call for a second ambulance was canceled.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-31/news/31267760_1_ems-response-zimmerman-scuffle

Click to expand...

this::



The following comment regarding the word in the narrative from nursebeeme, one of our own moderators and a licensed RN:

I am thinking all of his field tests were negative.

He was cleared to leave the scene in the back of the car with the officer which means he did not need emergent treatment. It does not say that he refused treatment or transport but that he was cleared.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7777010&postcount=842

Click to expand...

and what I saw with my own eyes in the jail video, I don't think he had any injuries that are going to help his claims for SYG.

gxm said:

Another member, can't recall if it was Papa or Doc, offered an interesting point. GZ was a frequent 911 caller and perhaps, on previous occasions, other "suspicious persons" had disappeared before LE arrived. IMO, that's the most plausible reason I've heard as to why GZ might have decided to follow and detain TM. There's still room for reasonable doubt, but that's the closest to convincing I've heard yet.

But, IMO, even with the reholstering of his weapon which, although I'm not a gun owner, I presume becomes an automatic response, GZ's behavior after shooting TM can be explained by shock. IMO, GZ is still in shock. He looked so small and meek standing before the judge, and as one commenter noted "gone." And if he can claim a head injury, he may be able to get anything he said to the cops tossed out (at least that's what others have suggested, not sure if it's within FL's legal limits). I know my crazy ex-DIL successfully used a head injury as an excuse for a hit and run in DC.

IMO, the SP needs a lot more evidence than what's revealed in the charging documents if she wants to nail him with murder 2. Her case seems pretty weak to me, so I hope she's hiding her aces.

JMO, OMO, and :moo:

Click to expand...

For some reason, I have a different opinion of how GZ looked. He looked like a criminal to me. I suspect that most criminals look scared and some cry according to Nancy Grace. They are human after all.

LiveLaughLuv said:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/13/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html


From the beginning, when this case came to view, the biggest clue against GZ are the words he used during his 911 call....his mentality is evident...he was not going to let another 'criminal' who he felt did not belong in HIS community get away, made sure TM wasn't going to get away...he reholstering his weapon makes me feel as if he was proud of what he'd done, as he stood over his trophy, not once rendering aid..GZ's words followed by his actions, will do him in...

As far as the conflicting accounts, we hear about that all the time, which is why we go to trial...then a jury of GZ's peers will weigh his fate. Who is more credible...if he takes it that far...he might also have the incentive to plea down for less prison time...we need to allow the wheels of justice to roll.... :maddening:

Click to expand...

BBM. Exactly. We also know that the supposed exchange of words at the car did not happen as GZ's family and supporters claim. It is not in the recorded 911 call. I suspect that his family and friends are repeating what GZ told them. I can't wait to see his initial statement to LE.

jjenny said:

Please read what the actual law says and not what AC said.
The actual law says OR. Separate thing one can prevent.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I'm well satisfied with her explanation. I trust her interpretation of the law because obviously she has successfully argued cases under it. I have 100% faith that Ms. Corey is more than capable of proving that Zimmerman pursued Trayvon and murdered him. I'll just sit back and wait to see how it all plays out but at this point I feel certain Zimmerman will not be able to successfully prove that he feared for his life when he is the one that pursued and instigated the entire encounter.



~jmo~

octobermoon said:

Wow,
Just don't know what to say to this. But I will try.

Where on earth are you getting the impression that people who want justice for Trayvon's death will riot if the jury says it was self defense?

Racism exists. Bank on it. Homophobia exists. Bank on it. Riots, dunno, doubt it, could be wrong, but to put that fear of riots by people like me? who didn't agree with the Casey A. verdict??? I was gonna hunt down the Jurors? didn't happen. Gimme a break.

If a Jury decides George Zimmerman was within his rights by law to stand his ground. I will respect that. So will most. If not all. Dear lord we have gone to hell in a hand cart when people can't agree it is wrong to follow teenagers in the dark with a gun. And it is wrong to point out that justice isn't always color/class blind. Gimme a break.


Off to the corner for me....

Click to expand...

Amen!

Adrienne37 said:

Thanks. I'm well satisfied with her explanation. I trust her interpretation of the law because obviously she has successfully argued cases under it. I have 100% faith that Ms. Corey is more than capable of proving that Zimmerman pursued Trayvon and murdered him. I'll just sit back and wait to see how it all plays out but at this point I feel certain Zimmerman will not be able to successfully prove that he feared for his life when he is the one that pursued and instigated the entire encounter.



~jmo~

Click to expand...

Well who am I going to trust? What she told Nancy or what I can see with my own eyes after reading the actual law?
The law says OR. It's a separate issue. One can prevent imminent commission of forcible felony. But one can also prevent death/great bodily harm.

jjenny said:

Please read what the actual law says and not what AC said.
The actual law says OR. Separate thing one can prevent. Yes, one can use this law to prevent imminent commission of forcible felony but that is a separate issue from death/great bodily harm.

"(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..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

Click to expand...

You have to include everything and not just a snippet.

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.

Legal experts have brought up the First Aggressor Exception. Just finding yourself on the losing end of a fight isn't automatically SYG or self defense, if you were the First Aggressor. That's why GZ's 911 calls, his medical records, his police statement, will all be a factor in a court of law. There are defense attorneys who have been interviewed who disagree. But given that they're criminal defense attorneys, it's pretty much what I would expect them to say, so we will see if and when this goes to trial.



JMHO

raeann said:

There is no reason at all to assume that she did "keep it mum". For all we know she could have told her parents, her friends, Trayvon's friends, and anyone else. There was NOTHING that would have changed! He was killed within seconds of the call being dropped! She probably called and texted and called again and again. There is again, NOTHING, that she could have done that would have changed anything at all. It is NOT THE JOB of a 15 year old girl to locate him! It was the job of SANFORD police to identify him and notify his family. It was the job of SANFORD police to find the phone and request the records and contact anyone with incoming or outgoing calls in the time frame of interest. They didn't do their job, but a 15 year old girl is to be blamed for not doing it FOR THEM???

jmo

Click to expand...

IMO - most young folks only know their boyfriends cell phone numbers, and may not know the cell numbers of the parents also. Just to add, and agree with above!

Considering I was discussing part of AC's statement where she appeared to say that the only way to use SYG is to prevent forcible felony I included the relevant part and the link to the rest. Nothing I see in this law indicates to me that the only thing SYG is good for is to prevent forcible felony. And by the way the aggressor exception might work in GZ's favor because one can still use SYG even if one is an initial aggressor. Of course the initial aggressor has to try and escape first, but if GZ claims he was the one on the ground it might not be so easy to escape. With this law, it appears one can actually start a fight (not saying GZ did) and then still use SYG claim.

Dr.Fessel said:

He wasn't going to let him get away this time.

GZ: These a-holes, they always get away. -----------------------S**t he's running.--------------------------Dispatcher: He's running, which way is he running?------------------------------GZ: The back entrance.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - FL - 17-yo Teen Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #4

Click to expand...

Let's not forget....
When the dispatcher asks GZ's home address towards the end of the call, GZ starts giving his address and then says I don't wanna give it all out on here.(paraphrased) Then, under his breath, states, 'I don't know where this KID went'.
That tells me right there that come he77 or high water 'this one wasn't going to get away'.

Why do I think of the 'policeman' in Terminator (who morphs into liquid metal when he is in a pickle) when I envision GZ's pursuit of Trayvon?

IMO, he didn't look like he was 'gone' at the hearing the other day. His posture was quite erect and confident.

MOO

wm