17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #18

CHICANA said:

GZ wasn't convicted of anything either, so what's the difference ? The officer was undercover and GZ didn't know he was a cop. He thought he just another guy in a bar bothering his friend. It's not like he went out and hit an identified uniformed officer. And I read that he shoved him, which IMO isn't exactly a serious physical assault. Where is the version that describes an identified PO and GZ saying he didn't care who he was ?

Click to expand...

ThoughtFox said:

I never said Zimmerman's attorney would coach him to lie. Besides, the attorney isn't there to judge his story one way or another, but to help him put forth the most appealing version of the story (if that's possible).

I said the att. might teach him to spin something differently from the original story, so I think we agree on that point....

Click to expand...

JeannaT said:

In medical reports, you can go back in and add something that you didn't know at the time, that is a matter of fact and doesn't affect or influence the medical treatment. For example, a patient's last name, gender, etc. You can't add something that would be very pertinent - for example, another drug the patient was on when receiving a medication. You'd have to note when that info was added, after the initial creation of the report. If you actually CHANGE something in a medical report you have to draw a single line through the error, write the correct information and write "error" next to it. You can't obliterate or erase information.

But you could certainly add in a name of the patient once you realize it's not on the form. Is that not true of a police report? I would think that would be about the same as adding a "case number" on the form after the case is actually opened. You can do that, can't you, without redating the police report?

Click to expand...

ThoughtFox said:

I never said Zimmerman's attorney would coach him to lie. Besides, the attorney isn't there to judge his story one way or another, but to help him put forth the most appealing version of the story (if that's possible).

I said the att. might teach him to spin something differently from the original story, so I think we agree on that point.



I have no idea. None of us have actually seen the crime scene photos, have we?

Click to expand...

JeannaT said:

Is adding information altering? If they had a police report on a shooting death and they didn't know the identity of the deceased, is it unethical to go back later and add in the identity once it is known?

I don't know, is why I'm asking.

Click to expand...

Dr.Fessel said:

Trayvon Martin protest: Students will march for 3 days



A coalition of college students will spend the next three days marching about 40 miles between Daytona Beach and Sanford to protest the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

The group, which calls itself the Dream Defenders, said the march is a "stand against racial profiling, institutional racism and the legacy of violence that continues to plague young people of color."

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...06_1_college-students-shooting-death-marchers

Click to expand...

fran said:

Thank you Allusonz.

I believe that's the reason GZ's attorney alluded to the 'shaken baby syndrome' scenario, in that there's not much visible evidence to the eye that there's injury, but one can die from it.

I believe it may not have been a good analogy as of course, people will jump on those words, 'shaken baby syndrome,' and not pay attention to what he means by it.

JMHO
fran

Click to expand...

gator said:

Can someone please help me understand this whole "under the law, you don't need to be injured to fear for your life" thing? At what point would a reasonable person think that GZ shooting TM is justified?

• Opponent is unarmed and has not touched you – not reasonable
• If you think your opponent has a gun because of preconceived notions you have about people like him, but you haven’t actually seen a weapon – not reasonable
• He says something straight out of a cheesy movie like, “You’re going to die tonight.” – not reasonable
• Someone jumps you from behind - ?
• Someone punches you in the face - ?
• Someone is on top of you, struggling for the gun that you pulled on him - ?

I know that some people are going to say that killing someone who initiated the fight and is beating your head into the ground is reasonable, but the question I have for those people is: do you really think Trayvon was wailing like his life was ending while beating GZ nearly to death (and yes, I think it was Trayvon screaming, supported by the analysis of the two audio experts)?

JMO.

Click to expand...

Nova said:

This is why I was saying several threads ago that it seems two people might each be simultaneously justified under SYG.

If GZ pulled a gun on TM, surely TM had a reasonable fear for his life. But if TM panicked and, while trying to get the gun away, pounded GZ's head into the ground, then apparently GZ also had a reasonable fear under SYG.

Now some will say GZ lost his SYG rights when he pulled out his gun, but we don't know what caused him to do that (assuming he did), do we?

Bad law.

Click to expand...

angelmom said:

I think the difference here is that Trayvon was in trouble for three things in the past:

1) writing obscene graffiti on the wall (my DD's 5th grade class is having the same problem in the boys' room right now)
2) an empty packet with marijuana residue (not a good sign but not illegal either)
3) jewelry that could not be matched to any reported theft and a screwdriver "that they felt could be used as a burglary tool."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-investigated-trayvon-martin-jewelry-16015168#.T38B8I6Q2KM

None of those things has any bearing on the night of 2/26 because even GZ has not said that Trayvon was:

1) writing on anything or vandalizing anything
2) smoking pot or anything else
3) breaking into a house, trying doorknobs, checking windows, or anything else to indicate that he was planning to rob someone. He was "looking around." That's all. I assume GZ was also "looking around" since he saw TM.

Also, TM was not found with a weapon, jewelry or anything else that had been stolen, graffiti tools, or so much as a bobby pin to break in somewhere.


OTOH:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/trayvon-martin-case-george-zimmerman_n_1392591.html

GZ has a history of violent acts, especially over people he seems to feel some authority over, like the woman at the party where he was the bouncer, or his ex. For example:






In addition, he seems to have some trouble accepting someone else's authority over him, like a police dispatcher (no, I understand it's not illegal to ignore their advice, but it's also not smart.)



And then there is the history of making a BFD out of nothing and calling police. Not to mention following the person and creating a more dangerous situation than the one he initially called about.



So when people bring up Trayvon's "history" it does reek of blaming the victim. When people bring up GZ's history it is absolutely relevant to what might have happened here. I believe that GZ called police and made a BFD out of nothing, as he had in the past; followed Trayvon, as he had others in the past; ignored the dispatcher's advice; and assaulted Trayvon as he had others in the past.

When you add in that the lead detective on the scene didn't believe GZ's story, when you add in that the funeral director said Trayvon's body showed no sign of a fight or scuffle, when you add in the lack of emergency medical treatment for GZ and the video where he appears to be just fine...it seems obvious to me that this is at least enough reason to investigate and possibly go to trial.

I am not being the judge, jury and executioner for GZ. I am not saying he is guilty (although I think that is most likely). I am saying there needs to be an investigation. I think someone needs to take this seriously. And I don't think anyone did until people started protesting and sharing on social media and making a fuss. While I agree that GZ shouldn't be arrested b/c of the outcry, I also don't think it should have taken this kind of outcry to prompt an investigation. It warranted one all by itself.

I also have to say that it makes me crazy that a 19 yo I know was taken into police custody and held in the jail over a fake ID at a bar longer than GZ was the night he admittedly shot an unarmed teenager. The city of Sanford has no one to blame for this except themselves. If they had arrested GZ that night, investigated, and then released him saying it appeared he acted in self-defense, I don't think anyone would have ever heard of either GZ or TM.

Just my :twocents:

Click to expand...

JeannaT said:

Thanks. It's interesting that the videotape doesn't have a time stamp that allows him to be more accurate about when Trayvon was there.

At a minimum, it took him 45 minutes to get back into the complex, or at any rate, 45 minutes (minimum) after purchasing the items he was still outside in the complex. Which leads to a question. What was he doing with that time? He wasn't going to the store and coming back, he was doing something else, likely innocent, but whatever it was is likely the reason he appeared suspicious to GZ.

Click to expand...

JeannaT said:

I'm still ruminating on this. It's not like he went back and changed an observation (for example, stating an officer noticed a suspect's limp when that in fact wasn't noticed until days later). I don't think adding the deceased's identity to this changes anything - it would be like adding an address, or phone number, or cop's badge number, or other information pertinent to the case that wouldn't change over time, but had not been in the report because it wasn't known at the time. The initial police report of a shooting that left off the identity of the deceased's identity is incomplete, and not the best recordkeeping practice, IMHO if they learn the identity and don't add it for clarity.

I don't see how filling in one of the blanks once the answer becomes known falsifies the report. Or even in any way looks suspicious. It makes it a more accurate, useful document. Trayvon's identity didn't change between 3:07 a.m. and whenever they added his identity to the report.

Click to expand...

Beyond Belief said:

I don't know if this was talked about before but that last link, had a comment under it which contains a link for a slowed down version of the screaming 911 call.

Click to expand...

KateNY said:

Thanks much, I listened to that from another link that I can't find now.


Dunno if we can post the audio link, but it's in the comments under the article here
http://www.wesh.com/trayvon-martin-extended-coverage/30841174/detail.html#ixzz1rHyJyZmJ


May be these ole ears, but it almost sounds like 2 shots. And it sounds as if the people making the 911 call mention shots, and make reference to a shot at 2 different times after a 'noise'

anyway, there is some sort of a loud noise, before the 2nd louder noise

but, we know GZ only fired off one shot ..


wonder what that other noise was......

Click to expand...

Adrienne37 said:

The corporate executive states Trayvon was in the store between 6-6:30 p.m. If it takes 45 minutes to walk to the store then obviously it takes 45 minutes to walk back so if he left the store at 6 p.m., he would have arrived back at the complex at 6:45. If he left the store at 6:30 p.m., it would have taken him until 7:15 p.m. to make it back. I fail to understand why anyone keeps needing to throw in the things that Trayvon "might have been" doing.



~jmo~

Click to expand...

LolaMoon08 said:

What 17-year-old would want to talk to his girlfriend in front of a 13-year-old boy? The 13-year-old would be making kissing noises and slobbering on his hand making fun of the conversations. I also believe that Trayvon wanted a little time to himself to be able to talk to his girlfriend. Sad that something so sweet and innocent could turn out like this?

Click to expand...