FL - 17-yo Boy Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #2

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Its a natural reaction to duck quickly out of the rain, assess it and as a kid decide "eh, I'll be alright if I put my hood up. I've just got a block more to go." two seconds later. I don't find anything suspicious in that at all. It would have been weirder if he hung out.

I don't necessarily fault GZ for calling 911. If you isolate this incident itself and don't take any of his side comments on the 911 tape in to account, its OK for him to phone in an unknown teen walking in the gated community. It would have been a 2 second well-check from the police and that'd be that. Though it is very creepy, I could almost let GZ following him in the car slide if he followed Trayvon to his final destination instead of hopping out and hunting him down on foot. But GZs history is suspect, then his stalking of the boy and CHOICE to confront what is naturally a freaked out kid with a strange man following him makes this pretty cut and dry murder to me.
 
GiantPickle said:
Its a natural reaction to duck quickly out of the rain, assess it and as a kid decide "eh, I'll be alright if I put my hood up. I've just got a block more to go." two seconds later. I don't find anything suspicious in that at all. It would have been weirder if he hung out.

I don't necessarily fault GZ for calling 911. If you isolate this incident itself and don't take any of his side comments on the 911 tape in to account, its OK for him to phone in an unknown teen walking in the gated community. It would have been a 2 second well-check from the police and that'd be that. Though it is very creepy, I could almost let GZ following him in the car slide if he followed Trayvon to his final destination instead of hopping out and hunting him down on foot. But GZs history is suspect, then his stalking of the boy and CHOICE to confront what is naturally a freaked out kid with a strange man following him makes this pretty cut and dry murder to me.
Click to expand...

I could really see a scenario like the following happening. An aware neighbor noticing a teen walking through the gated community, doesn't recognize them, sees them on a porch, then leave the porch, follows them to a house they see them walk into then that teen tells parents some weirdo was following me in a car and watching me like he was staking me out or something. Those parents call 911 while at the same time Zimmerman has also called 911 so we have competing 911 calls going on and the police come out to sort it all out.

That, to me, is what should have happened. :rocker:

IMO
 
gitana1 said:
You have been alerting everyone as to the ramifications of this law from the beginning of this case. Few have listened. But it's all over the papers and radio now. I still think Zimmerman can be prosecuted the law notwithstanding. But I will review it more deeply. Thanks for sounding the alarm.
Click to expand...

I agree in that I think he could be prosecuted. But what they are saying the worse he migh face is manslaughter (not murder) because of this law.
And even then its unclear if he can be sucessfully prosecuted.
 
rossva said:
I agree; Martin didn't deserve to be killed. What I am looking at are all the circumstances that led up to the confrontation.

If I saw some one do what Martin did, I most likely would have called 911 and reported it also. I may have also followed and observed at a safe distance till LE did infact arrive, especially if there had been unsolved breakins recently. I would not have gone up to him personally, nor would I have carried a weapon.

The problem is there is only one living person who knows exactly what happened. It is possible what Zimmerman is claiming is EXACTLY what happened that night. It's also just as POSSIBLE that Zimmerman called out to Martin, Martin stopped, and Zimmerman just shot him point blank.
Click to expand...
Top line BBM
I respect that. I walked away from posting a few days ago because of the attacks for asking questions.
**
There were not just two or three factors that made this happen. There were thousands. We do not live in a vacuum. Wouldn't people rather convince a person of GZ's guilt by presenting linked facts then by attacking them for asking questions that could be relevant? And asking questions about TM does not mean we think he did anything wrong. * Just like GZ's 42 calls to LE since January are relevant. *ALL of the pieces are important. Just because one person might not think a fact is relevant doesn't mean others don't- the same with jurors. *And I am sure, at trial, GZ's lawyer will be using any information he can to show doubt to the jury.
Jmo
 
rossva said:
In addition to the discussion's going on, should we perhaps discuss why Zimmerman was able to get a concealed carry permit in the first place? Are Florida's laws regarding that too lax?
Click to expand...

He isn't a convicted felon so based on gun laws he'd be able to carry gun in any state where one can carry a gun (I think).
 
Yoda said:
Top line BBM
I respect that. I walked away from posting a few days ago because of the attacks for asking questions.
**
There were not just two or three factors that made this happen. There were thousands. We do not live in a vacuum. Wouldn't people rather convince a person of GZ's guilt by presenting linked facts then by attacking them for asking questions that could be relevant? And asking questions about TM does not mean we think he did anything wrong. * Just like GZ's 42 calls to LE since January are relevant. *ALL of the pieces are important. Just because one person might not think a fact is relevant doesn't mean others don't- the same with jurors. *And I am sure, at trial, GZ's lawyer will be using any information he can to show doubt to the jury.
Jmo
Click to expand...

It won't be a jury. Because of "stand your ground" law this will go to a judge.
 
Aedrys said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not in FL it doesn't.
 
jjenny said:
It won't be a jury. Because of "stand your ground" law this will go to a judge.
Click to expand...

Why do you say that? How does this stand your ground law stop you from being charged with murder or being put in front of a jury?
 
2 Questions/comments

Just because the Stand Your Ground Law exists, doesn't mean it applies to this case. Someone let me know if I'm completely wrong on that.

Stand your ground cases DO go to a jury, but the judge can decide to drop the charges and grant immunity before it gets to that point. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

TIA
 
jjenny said:
It won't be a jury. Because of "stand your ground" law this will go to a judge.
Click to expand...

The 'stand your ground' law would NOT apply here, so why wouldn't it go to a jury? That law is only useful if you are attacked and trying to protect yourself, or your property. It really has zero to do with this case, so I'm not sure why it keeps coming up.

Just because someone wants to tell that lie to LE, doesn't make it so.
 
Trayvon Martin, Silent. We Must Speak.

By Tamara Copeland
President
Washington Regional Association of Grantmakers

By now, you have heard about the 17 year old, African-American boy who was killed tragically on February 26th by a neighborhood watch captain. According to reports, Trayvon was on his way to his dad’s home in a gated community after going to a nearby convenience store. George Zimmerman, the watch captain, saw him and perceived him as a threat to the neighborhood. He said he thought Trayvon was going for a gun. Trayvon only had Skittles and an iced tea in his hand.

As the mother of an African-American male teenager, this event has sickened me. For days, I put it out of my mind. I couldn’t think about it or talk about it. I know what it’s like to have to talk to your teenage son about walking-while-black, driving-while-black, shopping-while-black … simply what it means to be a black male in America. Today, I decided that I had to talk about it. Today, I decided that I had to use my voice to talk about something that too many of us don’t want to talk about or don’t know how to talk about: race and racism.

(snip)

http://giving.wordpress.com/2012/03...antmakersDaily+(Washington+Grantmakers+Daily)
 
jjenny said:
It won't be a jury. Because of "stand your ground" law this will go to a judge.
Click to expand...

I know what you are referring to but I can't find the link.

I don't get that at all. I don't understand how the state supreme court can take away a citizens right to a trial by jury of their peers and instead require that certain charges or laws be tried before a judge.

That seems like it would violate a person's rights.

IMO
 
Anadarko said:
The 'stand your ground' law would NOT apply here, so why wouldn't it go to a jury? That law is only useful if you are attacked and trying to protect yourself, or your property. It really has zero to do with this case, so I'm not sure why it keeps coming up.

Just because someone wants to tell that lie to LE, doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...

Did you read the actual law? It has everything to do with this case, that's why it keeps coming up.
 
Anadarko said:
The 'stand your ground' law would NOT apply here, so why wouldn't it go to a jury? That law is only useful if you are attacked and trying to protect yourself, or your property. It really has zero to do with this case, so I'm not sure why it keeps coming up.

Just because someone wants to tell that lie to LE, doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...

Thanks, someone needed to try and explain that. Just because a person claims that a shooting is in self defense does not make it a fact, not even in Florida. In many and I hope MOST jurisdictions things would have gone very very differently and nobody would be even discussing "Stand your ground"

In normal circumstances when the police roll up on a scene where one person is dead, and the other admits to being the shooter several things happen that simply did not happen here. The police take pictures and document any injuries that the shooter has, they take a statement, they interview neighbors, they collect evidence, the cell phone, they find out about the 911 calls. They have drug and alcohol tests done on both the shooter and the deceased. They look at the totality of the circumstances and turn all the actual evidence they have over to the Prosecutors office.

What they don't do is hear the shooter say it was self defense, and shrug and say OK and send him on his way. They don't NOT ask questions, document evidence, they don't simply NOT bother to try and discover if this was truly self defense....and in this case that will bite them on the butt hard, because there is ample if not an over abundance of actual evidence that shows that this was anything BUT self defense....stand your ground is NOT going to be Zimmermans get out of jail free card because the evidence show quite plainly that he was NOT defending himself.

Just because he says it does not make it so.
 
Talina said:
I know what you are referring to but I can't find the link.

I don't get that at all. I don't understand how the state supreme court can take away a citizens right to a trial by jury of their peers and instead require that certain charges or laws be tried before a judge.

That seems like it would violate a person's rights.

IMO
Click to expand...

I already posted it somewhere on this thread. Because Zimmerman claims self-defense a judge will get to decide.
 
daisy7 said:
Trayvon Martin, Silent. We Must Speak.

By Tamara Copeland
President
Washington Regional Association of Grantmakers

By now, you have heard about the 17 year old, African-American boy who was killed tragically on February 26th by a neighborhood watch captain. According to reports, Trayvon was on his way to his dad’s home in a gated community after going to a nearby convenience store. George Zimmerman, the watch captain, saw him and perceived him as a threat to the neighborhood. He said he thought Trayvon was going for a gun. Trayvon only had Skittles and an iced tea in his hand.

As the mother of an African-American male teenager, this event has sickened me. For days, I put it out of my mind. I couldn’t think about it or talk about it. I know what it’s like to have to talk to your teenage son about walking-while-black, driving-while-black, shopping-while-black … simply what it means to be a black male in America. Today, I decided that I had to talk about it. Today, I decided that I had to use my voice to talk about something that too many of us don’t want to talk about or don’t know how to talk about: race and racism.

(snip)

http://giving.wordpress.com/2012/03...antmakersDaily+(Washington+Grantmakers+Daily)
Click to expand...

BBM

Well, that's the first time I've seen that said. Where did that come from? I've seen the mention of his hand on his waist but nothing I've read or heard says anything at all about Zimmerman thinking Tray was reaching for a gun. Good grief.
 
jjenny said:
Did you read the actual law? It has everything to do with this case, that's why it keeps coming up.
Click to expand...

Yes, it can be seen to have 'everything to do with this case' and any other similar case, as long as the truth is told!
 
daisy7 said:
Zimmerman said he had stepped out of his truck to check the name of the street he was on when Trayvon attacked him from behind as he walked back to his truck, police said. He said he feared for his life and fired the semiautomatic handgun he was licensed to carry because he feared for his life.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/...girl-on-phone-with-trayvon.html#storylink=cpy

I just read about his excuse for getting out of of his car. Where did this statement come from? Wonder what his explanation was for chasing Trayvon as evidenced in his own 911 call?
Click to expand...

So Zimmerman claims he wasn't sure what street he was on and that is the reason he got out of his car? Am I understanding this correctly? The man who spent hours and hours of his time, proudly patrolling this neighborhood, captain of the watch. The man who spent enough time doing so to have phoned police approximately 50 times regarding suspcious activity in said neighborhood in 2011, the man who made other neighbors uncomfortable because he was so up in their business, THAT MAN WAS UNSURE WHAT STREET HE WAS ON?!?

I gotta cry foul. That is the most ridiculous excuse I have ever heard. Does not pass the straight face test. Not even a little. He has spent weeks hiding from the public and THIS is the excuse he managed to come up with in all that time? :burn:
 
jjenny said:
I already posted it somewhere on this thread. Because Zimmerman claims self-defense a judge will get to decide.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know you posted it. I read it when you did.

I am saying I don't see how that can be right that this law regarding self defense is tried before a judge and not a jury. I don't see how that is constitutional.
 
Talina said:
Yes, I know you posted it. I read it when you did.

I am saying I don't see how that can be right that this law regarding self defense is tried before a judge and not a jury. I don't see how that is constitutional.
Click to expand...



I am not sure either-but I am not a lawyer. Maybe the judge first has to decide whether it can even go to the jury if he is arrested? All I know is that experts think this law makes it hard for Zimmerman to even be prosecuted, let alone successfully. Because of this law, state would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt Zimmerman didn't act in self defense-so much for "self-defense" being an affirmative defense.


"McClatchy Newspapers reports that "legal experts say Zimmerman, if arrested, would probably be charged with manslaughter and not murder -- and would have a strong defense under Florida's law, with a judge needing to decide first whether he is immune from prosecution." As Mother Jones points out, Florida courts have found that under that statute, "defendant's only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could have been reasonable" while "the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.""


http://mediamatters.org/blog/201203200009
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 204 more.
Total: 3,868 (members: 205, guests: 3,663)

Online statistics

Members online
205
Guests online
3,663
Total visitors
3,868
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,158
Messages
17,964,370
Members
228,705
Latest member
mhenderson
Back
Top