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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...

Since we don't know what Trayvon was doing that GZ characterized as "suspicious", I think it's open to thinking about what it could have been.

No one is saying Trayvon was committing a crime. But rather, what did he appear like that evening?
 
JeannaT said:
If you re-read it, it doesn't say he was inside the store from 6 - 6:30. It says he purchased the items between 6 and 6:30. Meaning, he could have purchased them at 6.

It is kind of unclear, though.
Click to expand...

This is what I said. No where in my post did I say anything about him being in the store for 30 minutes.

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~
 
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...

I don't know the answer to your question but while you have two audio experts GZ has two eyewitnesses he was on the bottom. Here's from a state of Fla. licensing web site.

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.

Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.

Q. What if someone uses threatening language to me so that I am afraid for my life or safety?

A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html
 
JeannaT said:
I don't know. The initial belief that he walked to the store, and then walked right back - something that would look not suspicious- may not be accurate. He may have been kind of slowly exploring the place (not a crime) or standing in one area and pacing back and forth (not a crime) or doing something else that looked more suspicious than someone walking in a purposeful way.

This whole thing was a horrible misunderstanding, and the more we learn about what led to the misunderstanding, the better. And so when you find out that 45 minutes to an hour and 15 minutes after leaving the 7-11, Trayvon was still not home you have to wonder what he was doing besides walking to the condo unit.

Not that whatever he was doing was criminal. The point is, did it look more criminal than a purposeful walk.

BTW, people don't normally "wait for the rain to let up" while they're standing in the rain. They work to get back home if the rain is bothering them.
Click to expand...

I grew up in Florida and lived there until I was 23. I am well aware of how quickly tropical downpours come and go. No, of course one doesn't stand in the rain, but one might well stand under an awning for 15 or 20 minutes, trusting that the worst of the rain will pass before long. I have done so myself countless times, including when I was TM's age.

I have never assumed that GZ set out to stalk and kill a black person that night, so I don't have much reason to imagine an alternate reason why he found TM suspicious.
 
Peliman said:
I don't know the answer to your question but while you have two audio experts GZ has two eyewitnesses he was on the bottom. Here's from a state of Fla. licensing web site.

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.

Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.

Q. What if someone uses threatening language to me so that I am afraid for my life or safety?

A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html
Click to expand...

Am I the only one who is struck by how carefully GZ's story eventually gets around to fulfilling the criteria listed above. I have to wonder if he was coached.
 
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...

It is against the law. You can not create a report and date it then add information to it at a later date without dating the addition.

It is a historical document. People looking at it would say well they knew the ID of the person at 3:09 which would not be true.
 
Nova said:
I understand that's a terrible position in which to place any parent, but how do you want LE to identify dead bodies, if not by showing pictures to next of kin?
Click to expand...

Generally you don't see crime scene photos. You either go to the ME's office and identify in person, or they take a sterile picture of the body in the morgue. That wasn't this department's best procedural move IMO.
 
Dr.Fessel said:
It is against the law. You can not create a report and date it then add information to it at a later date without dating the addition.

It is a historical document. People looking at it would say well they knew the ID of the person at 3:09 which would not be true.
Click to expand...

I agree. Any document that is modified should indicate how it was modified and when. I work for a government agency and they would have a cow if we just went back to a document and added something without a revision of that document being made. But then again, we're talking about the SPD.
 
Adrienne37 said:
I do not believe it's up to us to decide if it is a teardrop or a raindrop, the whole point of the post is to show how callous and unconcerned the Sanford Police Dept treated the father of a murder victim by showing him a picture of his child laying face down in the grass after he was murdered. To Tracy Martin that represented a tear drop and I do not believe it should be up to anyone to decipher or interpret how Mr. Martin felt at that moment to see his beloved son lying face down with a bullet through him.



~jmo~
Click to expand...

I must apologize. I think the way i worded this post was wrong.

I should of explained it better. This is a tragedy and inside many of us are broken up and tears of grief have been shed.

If there was though moisture on TM's face that appeared to be a teardrop I am more apt to believe that it was a raindrop.

No one wants to see things like this happens there are never any winners.
 
Dr.Fessel said:
It is against the law. You can not create a report and date it then add information to it at a later date without dating the addition.

It is a historical document. People looking at it would say well they knew the ID of the person at 3:09 which would not be true.
Click to expand...

If you didn't know the spelling of a fellow officer, or the address where you were (because it wasn't clearly marked, etc.) could you go back in and add those without updating the date?

I'm not trying to be challenging - but do you know for a fact that an officer can't go back and fill in factual information (that isn't subject to interpretation, like Trayvon's ID)?

Reason I ask is, it changes nothing. It seems hard to believe a cop would violate clear protocol to add something that doesn't affect anything. It's not like he's adding information that would make his behavior at the scene appear better, or make it appear he had good reason to react a certain way, or make the suspect look guiltier, etc.
 
ScubaTwinn said:
I agree. Any document that is modified should indicate how it was modified and when. I work for a government agency and they would have a cow if we just went back to a document and added something without a revision of that document being made. But then again, we're talking about the SPD.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Nova said:
Am I the only one who is struck by how carefully GZ's story eventually gets around to fulfilling the criteria listed above. I have to wonder if he was coached.
Click to expand...

GZ's story has certainly evolved over time with the help of his mouth pieces.
 
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. For example, a patient's last name, gender, etc. 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.
Click to expand...

I would think this is what happened, if a deceased is unknown at the time the report is written why not add the name after it's been identified. jmo
 
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...

Yes, a medical document can be corrected as you have indicated, but it is absolutely imperative that the date and time that the change is made be included in the report. If this is not done, it can be considered fraudulent documentation. This from my experience as an RN for 26 years.
 
Dr.Fessel said:
Rut Roh, They seem to be distancing themselves from the concrete. LOL

"We're familiar with the Shaken Baby Syndrome," said Uhrig on the CBS This Morning program. "You shake a baby, the brain shakes around inside the skull. You can die when someone's pounding your head into the ground."



http://whtc.com/news/articles/2012/...me-used-in-defense-of-trayvon-martins-killer/
Click to expand...

I guess I don't understand how this would help GZ. I doubt a jury would believe that he could have or would have even thought at the moment the struggle occurred, that TM could shake my brain till I am brain damaged. But, nevertheless, is he changing his testimony as to what he told police that night?
 
Isabelle said:
GZ's story has certainly evolved over time with the help of his mouth pieces.
Click to expand...

However GZ was interviewed on tape three times with LE that night. So it doesn't really matter what his father or brother or neighbor say. The only story that will matter during the trial will be his initial version, imo.
 
Nova said:
Am I the only one who is struck by how carefully GZ's story eventually gets around to fulfilling the criteria listed above. I have to wonder if he was coached.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way.. seems bit by bit a fact (if u can call it that) is released to the media that seemingly sets up the SYG laws as a defense.
 
JeannaT said:
If you didn't know the spelling of a fellow officer, or the address where you were (because it wasn't clearly marked, etc.) could you go back in and add those without updating the date?

I'm not trying to be challenging - but do you know for a fact that an officer can't go back and fill in factual information (that isn't subject to interpretation, like Trayvon's ID)?

Reason I ask is, it changes nothing. It seems hard to believe a cop would violate clear protocol to add something that doesn't affect anything. It's not like he's adding information that would make his behavior at the scene appear better, or make it appear he had good reason to react a certain way, or make the suspect look guiltier, etc.
Click to expand...

And yet, lots of things seem to hint that police and prosecutors may have violated protocol, and there are many things about this case that no one would ever imagine would or could ever happen.
 
Elley Mae said:
I would think this is what happened, if a deceased is unknown at the time the report is written why not add the name after it's been identified. jmo
Click to expand...

I totally agree. But then, I'm not a cop so maybe I'm wrong.
 
JeannaT said:
If you didn't know the spelling of a fellow officer, or the address where you were (because it wasn't clearly marked, etc.) could you go back in and add those without updating the date?

I'm not trying to be challenging - but do you know for a fact that an officer can't go back and fill in factual information (that isn't subject to interpretation, like Trayvon's ID)?

Reason I ask is, it changes nothing. It seems hard to believe a cop would violate clear protocol to add something that doesn't affect anything. It's not like he's adding information that would make his behavior at the scene appear better, or make it appear he had good reason to react a certain way, or make the suspect look guiltier, etc.
Click to expand...

I don't know about police reports. All I know is that for my job, the notes are EVERYTHING and we live by the mantra that "if it isn't in the notes it didn't happen." Anytime we change anything, it is noted. In fact, I couldn't go in and change something if I wanted to. The computer would still note that I (logged in) added or updated some information on a certain date at a certain time.

It may not seem to be important when it is merely adding more information, but tracking is critical for someone to go back later and determine when the police knew this information. It creates a timeline to refer back to later, especially if there is a trial.

They should do it if only to help themselves. Trayvon's name being on that 3am police report opens them to criticism that they did not notify his family in a timely way. Does anyone really think they wait for a "decent hour" to notify a family of a dead child? But an amended report showing that Trayvon was positively identified via a photograph by his father at whatever time on the morning of 2/27 is much more accurate and gives a clearer picture of the timeline.

Whenever documents are altered without proper notation, it's a red flag that someone is either incompetent or hiding something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 204 more.
Total: 3,548 (members: 205, guests: 3,343)

Online statistics

Members online
205
Guests online
3,343
Total visitors
3,548
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,223
Messages
17,965,368
Members
228,725
Latest member
Starlight86
Back
Top