17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #26

[Karmady]

What's the point in debating things that DIDN'T happen?!

Here's a link talking about the point of hypotheticals in attempting to answer legal questions. It's a pdf, and I don't know how to C&P it easily, but the relevant part is summarized in last sentence of the first paragraph of the introduction.

www.cs.uu.nl/groups/IS/archive/henry/Carney10.pdf

 

[Phoenixfla]

What's the point in debating things that DIDN'T happen?!

Perhaps you can tell us exactly what DID happen then.

Seems to me that none of us know exactly what happened. To claim that you know what happened, and someone else with the same access to the same evidence does not know what happened, seems a little closed minded.

I think most of us (hopefully all of us) are here with an opened mind.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

In fairness to GZ, he only mentioned TM's suspicious behavior (as GZ perceived it, of course) to the 911 dispatcher, even suggesting that TM may have been on drugs. The dispatcher then asked for a description of TM's race and what he was wearing.

It's also signficant that in Angela Corey's affidavit GZ is said to have profiled TM. Profiling is not a crime. It's only a crime when it involves race, religion, etc. She would have definitely attached "racially" to "profiled" if she thought that she could prove it.

I really don't know how to address the rest of your statement. You seem to be suggesting that GZ left his truck with the intention of shooting TM to prevent a felony. If that was his intention, why call 911?

As you said, time will tell.

JMO

Racial profiling is not a crime as far as GZ is concerned. There would be no reason for her to put that in there.

 

[cityslick]

Racial profiling is not a crime as far as GZ is concerned. There would be no reason for her to put that in there.

:waitasec: I'm confused by what you mean here? Are you saying in GZ's mind, racial profiling isn't a crime, therefore there is no need to charge him as such?

 

[lauriej]

Zimmerman judge expected to step aside Wednesday..

Court officials issued a statement this afternoon, saying Recksiedler is expected to decide what to do no later than Friday.

But things should become clearer Wednesday. That's the day Recksiedler is expected to sign an order, surrendering control of the case.


http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...1_felony-judges-veteran-judge-appellate-judge

--from adrienne's link--

When she does sign the order, stepping aside, the next judge will be one of three people, the remaining felony judges in Seminole County. They are:

John Galluzzo, a long-time Oviedo lawyer who's represented several murder defendants and been on the bench five years.

Kenneth Lester Jr., the 15-year veteran judge who sentenced Mike Reynolds to the death penalty for beating and stabbing a Geneva couple and their 11-year-old child to death in 1998.

Debra S. Nelson, a 13-year judge who was a civil litigation specialist when she was in private practice.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

There is lots of circumstantial evidence that leads a person to believe that Zimmerman started the fight, that he laid hands on Martin first. His intentions are outlined in his 911 call. How do you not let these azzholes not get away when they are running to the back gate? You get out of your shruck and stop them before they get away.

 

[AngelWings444]

A jury (if it gets that far) will have to ultimately decide if GZ 'attacked' TM or if they believe GZ's story (TM attacked him).

Hmmm...GZ is the one charged with 2nd degree murder. Trayvon is dead. GZ "thought" Trayvon looked like a criminal, on drugs, suspicious etc..GZ followed Trayvon when he was told not too. GZ was wrong about Trayvon.

I'll stick with the charging document until someone other than GZ and his "unusual" relative's speak, proof on serious injuries are released, documents released etc..even if GZ had injuries, if I were Trayvon, I would fight to get away from someone who is following me. At NO time have we heard Trayvon was following GZ, stalking him, thinking he was up to no good etc..I do not believe for one second Trayvon came after GZ first. His injuries..pfft! My kids have had worse from bumping their head on their beds.

For what it's worth, I have stated that I don't see this going to trial. I believe GZ and M'OM will plead this case.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

:waitasec: I'm confused by what you mean here? Are you saying in GZ's mind, racial profiling isn't a crime, therefore there is no need to charge him as such?

No, I am saying GZ is just a citizen and he can racially profile anyone he wants to and it is not a crime. Even if he did in this case there would have to be more proof that what he did was a hate crime.

 

[suzihawk]

Perhaps you can tell us exactly what DID happen then.

Seems to me that none of us know exactly what happened. To claim that you know what happened, and someone else with the same access to the same evidence does not know what happened, seems a little closed minded.

I think most of us (hopefully all of us) are here with an opened mind.

Excuse me? :what: :waitasec:

I've never claimed to know anything more than the little evidence that's been released. The same evidence that everyone on this board has had the same access to.

I don't know what happened. But I know what DIDN'T.

I'm still allowed to express my opinions on this forum, right? If not, I'm sure one of the mods will let me know.

 

[LambChop]

I read the statute as saying one can use deadly force to prevent great bodily harm or to stop a forcible felony.

What felony was TM commiting? There was none so the statute does not apply to him. No evidence of a crime on TM's behalf and had LE handled the matter TM would have been home safe and sound. People every day encounter others who they feel look like they're up to no good but they do not go after them and take the law into their own hands. GZ's story changed about TM "jumping" him because GZ had to change it. TM was a minor and GZ had no business placing his hands on him, stopping him, detaining him and really should not have been following him.

I think it is pretty clear GZ should have let LE, the experienced, highly trained professionals do their job because GZ's determination to do what he wanted to do cost a young man his life. jmo

 

[grammieto5]

Respectfully, if you are looking at from a non-legal perspective, you could conclude that he "had to have a reason." But under the law, imo, he did not. So, unless George did something else to Trayvon that amounted to a certain type of crime or threatened him with imminent bodily harm or death FIRST (which following him, in and of itself, was not), Trayvon's alleged physical assualt would be what triggers SYG at the moment GZ became fearful or serious injury or death. And that fear doesn't have to be based on Trayvon's actual ability to inflict such harm. GZ's fear just has to be reasonable under the circumstances. jmoo

I think the sticking point in the conversation is the idea that following, approaching or even confronting Trayvon verbally is illegal. It is not, imo. So that's the basis of my interpretation of how SYG will apply in this case

And that's the part that is so scary, I'm afraid you may be right, GZ believed he did not need a reason, under the law. I'm saying I think he had to have a reason before he approached Trayvon. I sure hope he needed more then just thinking in his mind Trayvon looked suspicious, therefore he had every right to approach Trayvan, and say and do what ever he wanted to, under the law.

 

[lauriej]

In fairness to GZ, he only mentioned TM's suspicious behavior (as GZ perceived it, of course) to the 911 dispatcher, even suggesting that TM may have been on drugs. The dispatcher then asked for a description of TM's race and what he was wearing.

It's also signficant that in Angela Corey's affidavit GZ is said to have profiled TM. Profiling is not a crime. It's only a crime when it involves race, religion, etc. She would have definitely attached "racially" to "profiled" if she thought that she could prove it.

I really don't know how to address the rest of your statement. You seem to be suggesting that GZ left his truck with the intention of shooting TM to prevent a felony. If that was his intention, why call 911?

As you said, time will tell.

JMO

--based on other stmts. in the affidavit, it looks to me that she's going for 'criminally profiled'.

--some references to crime/criminal in the affidavit.

http://cfnews13.com/content/dam/new...george-zimmerman-probable-cause-affadavit.pdf
--affidavit of probable cause--

--"Martin was on his way back to the townhouse where he was living when he was profiled by GZ. Martin was unarmed and was not committing a crime."

--"During the recorded call, GZ made reference to people he felt had committed and gotten away w/ break-ins in his neighbourhood."

--"GZ observed TM and assumed TM was a criminal".

--"TM attempted to run home but was followed by GZ who didn't want the person he falsely assumed was going to commit a crime get away before LE arrived."

 

[csziggy]

I think SYG has a place, but it needs to be more strictly defined. If you are about to get jumped by one or more people, looking to rob/hurt/rape you, you should have every right to defend yourself from your attacker to the point of disabling them, even if that means death. For example, this case:

Eve Carson, 22, shot to death, Chapel Hill, NC #3 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Now it ended tragically, but if Eve was carrying a gun, she would have every right to kill the two people that were robbing her, because the end result would of been (and was) her life.

Under the law as it existed BEFORE Stand Your Ground, people had the right to protect themselves and their homes. Law enforcement and legal authorities went before the Florida Legislature to say that the provisions in SYG were NOT needed and that it would probably lead to abuses, exactly the kind of abuses that have been seen.

SYG is just overkill in every sense of the word. It goes too far and needs to be repealed. Getting rid of SYG will not remove the pre-existing rights to protect life and property, it will just remove the extraordinary provisions added for no rational reason.

JMO, IMO, etc.

 

[Sonya610]

What felony was TM commiting? There was none so the statute does not apply to him.

Uhhh....I believe in this case it refers to "great bodily harm" such as if someone jumped on you and started smashing your head into the concrete several times.

 

[RANCH]

What felony was TM commiting? There was none so the statute does not apply to him. No evidence of a crime on TM's behalf and had LE handled the matter TM would have been home safe and sound. People every day encounter others who they feel look like they're up to no good but they do not go after them and take the law into their own hands. GZ's story changed about TM "jumping" him because GZ had to change it. TM was a minor and GZ had no business placing his hands on him, stopping him, detaining him and really should not have been following him.

I think it is pretty clear GZ should have let LE, the experienced, highly trained professionals do their job because GZ's determination to do what he wanted to do cost a young man his life. jmo

BBM. I guess one way to interpret the SYG law is that it only applies to preventing a forcible felony. I read it as being applicable when trying to prevent great bodily harm or to prevent a forcible felony.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

 

[annalia]

And that's the part that is so scary, I'm afraid you may be right, GZ believed he did not need a reason, under the law. I'm saying I think he had to have a reason before he approached Trayvon. I sure hope he needed more then just thinking in his mind Trayvon looked suspicious, therefore he had every right to approach Trayvan, and say and do what ever he wanted to, under the law.

There have been legal experts, as well as the ones who authored the law, who say that GZ's following Trayvon and his intent in following him makes him the First Aggressor, that SYG does not apply to him in this case, others have disagreed.

Time will tell if a judge rules that it was SYG or if it goes to trial.

JMHO

 

[Phoenixfla]

Excuse me? :what: :waitasec:

I've never claimed to know anything more than the little evidence that's been released. The same evidence that everyone on this board has had the same access to.

I don't know what happened. But I know what DIDN'T.

I'm still allowed to express my opinions on this forum, right? If not, I'm sure one of the mods will let me know.

Suzihawk,

When you say you know what DIDN'T happen, I assume from looking back at your original response that you dont believe that TM started the PHYSICAL confrontation. I understand your position, but that does not necessiarly mean that everyone else has to accept it as fact.

I personally have not seen enough evidence to decide who actually started the physical confrontation, and to me that is the crux of the entire case against GZ.

If I am in error, and you are referring to something else that "DIDN'T" happen, my apologies.

 

[Karmady]

And that's the part that is so scary, I'm afraid you may be right, GZ believed he did not need a reason, under the law. I'm saying I think he had to have a reason before he approached Trayvon. I sure hope he needed more then just thinking in his mind Trayvon looked suspicious, therefore he had every right to approach Trayvan, and say and do what ever he wanted to, under the law.

I don't think the law allowed him to approach Trayvon and say and do "whatever he wanted." I just think the law allows him to follow Trayvon, approach him and address him verbally so long as the following, approaching and verbally communicating was not itself criminal. If GZ had come upon Trayvon screaming and swinging his fists or brandishing his weapon and saying he was going to shoot him, Trayvon would have had a legitimate fear of imminent and great bodily harm and SYG would not apply to GZ, imo. And who knows, maybe GZ did just that and his SYG defense will be unsuccessful. But following, approaching and verbally confronting in a non-assualtive (by the legal definition of assualt) manner is not against the law as I understand it. jmoo.

 

[grammieto5]

In fairness to GZ, he only mentioned TM's suspicious behavior (as GZ perceived it, of course) to the 911 dispatcher, even suggesting that TM may have been on drugs. The dispatcher then asked for a description of TM's race and what he was wearing.

It's also signficant that in Angela Corey's affidavit GZ is said to have profiled TM. Profiling is not a crime. It's only a crime when it involves race, religion, etc. She would have definitely attached "racially" to "profiled" if she thought that she could prove it.

I really don't know how to address the rest of your statement. You seem to be suggesting that GZ left his truck with the intention of shooting TM to prevent a felony. If that was his intention, why call 911?

As you said, time will tell.

JMO

Well no! I do not think nor have I ever stated I believed GZ left his truck with the intention of shooting Trayvon. As for Trayvon's suspicious behaviour, I'm talking about GZ mentioning Trayvon looking around. I have never in any of my posts mentioned anything about drugs, race or clothing, other then to say I wear a pink hoodie when I go walking. To me this is about right and wrong! If you choose to make this about race, feel free to do it, but don't include me in what you may or may not think.
Yes of course time will tell

 

[LambChop]

I'd be willing to bet that it definitely wasn't blood. I would certainly hope that the Sanford Police Department has taught their police officers about universal precautions, but then again, we are talking about SPD, they probably could care less.


~jmo~

It might have been wet grass. jmo