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

[imamaze]

Just a reminder...

SOUND OFF Private Forum Companion Thread

Anyone feeling overheated or wishing to discuss the demonstrations, political, religious or racial aspects of the Trayvon Martin case, please check out our new forum in the private area of Websleuths accessible only to Websleuths members, called SOUND OFF. We are not discussing these things in the main forum.

Warning: Be sure to read the Required Read sticky post. [ame=http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168453]Link to Trayvon Martin Sound Off[/ame]

 

[songline]

I don't think any witness observed that he had absolutely no chance of escape or that TM was bashing GZ's head into the pavement. I have not seen one witness say those two things were true. Also, witnesses are notoriously unreliable. I am not going to consider what a witness says as proof that GZ had no escape, was getting his head bashed in the pavement, and therefore had to shoot TM. That is just not enough for me.

I wish / hope there is someone who saw the start.
I believe that different people saw different parts of what happened. some only heard it because they were afraid to go to a window and be seen.
I also believe that there were different times that both of them were on the bottom and on the top.
And both of them yelled for help at different times too.
DO I know anything for sure NOP - nobody here does. :moo:

 

[magnolia]

Originally Posted by mommakk51
We have no PROOF that GZ did anything in the way of provoking a physical confrontation.. they asked him not to follow Tray,he said OK and then he went in the opposite direction to get the address from they next street. By that time, it was dark. He would not have been able to see Tray if he was half way down that sidewalk. It was on his way back that the confrontation happened. He was attacked from behind. We have saw photos, we have seen/heard witness accounts of the bandages he had, and of his swollen/bandaged nose. My goodness, what more does one need to make an assessment of who was the aggressor here?

Not according to ACorey...read the charging document..it's clearly laid out..I don't get how in the heck folk can back this guy who took a teen's life for no other reason than HIM deeming TM a criminal...up to no good, on drugs or something...What the hell is wrong with America these days...:banghead:

We now blame the victim and praise the perpetrator???

I just don't follow that logic...:maddening:

I believe this is why our judicial system is in an uproar...blame the victim seems to be the mantra these days...when in fact, GZ should be held accountable for his actions...You both are just taking GZ's words as facts when his facts don't match the evidence...especially speaking on how and where this murder occurred...or the SP would not have brought charges she thought would not get to court...and the Judge who signed it agreed...there is probable cause to move forward..so we now say the judge and SP don't have a clue on the statutes? That we know more than they do? That this is to just appease the public pressure..:what:

I think not!

No one is saying that. We're all waiting for this to go to trial. In the meantime, we can talk about what we believed happened. Just because we agree with the prosecution so far doesn't mean we're rushing to judgment here. Personally, I want to see the trial and what evidence is presented before accusing other people of rushing to judgment. We can talk about this in civilized manner. That's what this forum is for. We can agree to disagree too. We won't know who is really responsible for what happened or even what happened until trial. Now, all we can do is look at what has come out and speculate. It is our right to do that.

Respectfully, I disagree. I have read several comments referring to AC's charging document as if everything in it is fact. IMO

I agree with mommakk51. We have no proof that GZ provoked a physical confrontation.. I'm not going to just assume "if it's in AC's charging document", it must be true.If this goes to trial, a Jury will decide whether GZ provoked a physical confrontation. After seeing and hearing all the evidence, a Jury may have a different opinion.

 

[Karmady]

YEP! That's exactly what I asked yesterday.

The quoted part of your post left out a very important part of the statute:

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.013 just happens to be the SYG part, which is this:

snipped and bbm for relevance~

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

* * *

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

* * *


According to GZ (and his version is what his defense will be, like it or not), is that Trayvon attacked him where GZ had the right to be and, therefore, that GZ had the right to use force, even deadly force, "to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself." The words "to prevent the commission of a forcible felony" are in the disjunctive - "or." And, he had no duty to retreat. jmoo

 

[Phoenixfla]

I don't think any witness observed that he had absolutely no chance of escape or that TM was bashing GZ's head into the pavement. I have not seen one witness say those two things were true. Also, witnesses are notoriously unreliable. I am not going to consider what a witness says as proof that GZ had no escape, was getting his head bashed in the pavement, and therefore had to shoot TM. That is just not enough for me.

An eye witness statement is not even enough to have a reasonable doubt? What would you consider enough?

 

[Donjeta]

Up to two years? Why do defense lawyers want to drag cases out so long? Ugh. Up to two years. I do not like that. I guess GZ waived his right to a speedy trial...

Isn't it against his client's best interests?
Why would his client, an innocent man who has a very good chance of being declared not guilty by the jury because he was only standing his ground and acting in self defense, want to wait two years for the court to say so and live under a cloud for all that time?

 

[cityslick]

I don't think any witness observed that he had absolutely no chance of escape or that TM was bashing GZ's head into the pavement. I have not seen one witness say those two things were true. Also, witnesses are notoriously unreliable. I am not going to consider what a witness says as proof that GZ had no escape, was getting his head bashed in the pavement, and therefore had to shoot TM. That is just not enough for me.

That's ultimately going to be GZ's problem in this case. Because he's claiming self defense, he needs someone, anyone to collaborate that TM was in a position to hurt him. I agree with Phoenix, there doesn't need to be a brain injury or even any injury in order claim self defense. If you are in fear of such a thing happening, I believe that is enough to claim self defense under the law. But the burden shifts to GZ to actually prove that, prove how he was in fear. If there are no eyewitnesses that can show that TM was in a position of power and leverage, then it's just GZ's word and I'm not sure any jury would aquit based on that alone.

 

[GrandmaTo4]

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

A Miami funeral director says Trayvon Martin’s body showed no signs of a violent brawl.

Richard Kurtz said his examination of the slain Florida teen’s corpse revealed no cuts, scratches or bruises, only a gunshot wound to the chest.

Kurtz’s account appears to contradict George Zimmerman’s claims that he shot Trayvon during a life-and-death struggle.

“We could see no physical signs like there had been a scuffle [or] there had been a fight,” Kurtz told CBS News.

“The hands — I didn’t see any knuckles, bruises or what have you, and that is something we would have covered up if it would have been there.”

I am not seeing the same in the article you posted.
:waitasec:

bbm

The EMT report info IS THERE.

The Headline only came from:

#31 on a long list titled, "What Everyone Should Know About Trayvon Martin - 1995-2012"

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...ld-know-about-about-trayvon-martin-1995-2012/ (wasn't sure it was considered a MSM link)

#31 Directed its readers to their source: "The New York Daily News" which I posted in my last post.

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

"The New York Daily News" page DOES include the funeral director's observations about Trayvon's body.

Right below the funeral director's descriptions is the information about the EMT reports.

Scroll about half way down the page. I quoted exactly from that New York Daily page.

The "What Everyone Should Know About Trayvon Martin - 1995-2012" (at the top of this post) is an excellent article that's very informative. It's very much worth a read.

Every one of their statements is linked to their original news sources.

 

[Aedrys]

An eye witness statement is not even enough to have a reasonable doubt? What would you consider enough?

A reconstruction (most likely computer generated) of what happened that night, backed up bullet trajectory, GSR, and other forensics. The witnesses only saw the end of the fight. None saw the entire thing from beginning to end. And witnesses are human. In some cases, witnesses have been proven to be wrong about what they thought they saw. No one's perception of an event is perfect, which is why a lot of the time there are conflicting stories about what what people witnessed at the same event. It's not to say witnesses can't be useful, but it shouldn't be assumed that what they say they saw is what actually happened. I am forensics girl. Show the me the reconstruction, show me the forensics, let me SEE that what GZ said could have actually happened. That will convince me that his story is true.

 

[cityslick]

Isn't it against his client's best interests?
Why would his client, an innocent man who has a very good chance of being declared not guilty by the jury because he was only standing his ground and acting in self defense, want to wait two years for the court to say so and live under a cloud for all that time?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the investigation is technically still ongoing. I would think the state may have a say on how fast a trial can proceed at this stage.

 

[rotterdam]

I will and always have looked at people exactly like they present themselves.

I agree. Whether you go for a job interview or court appearance. Look at some alleged criminals and their metamorphosis when appearing in court. Even Juries are effected by it.

 

[Aedrys]

Isn't it against his client's best interests?
Why would his client, an innocent man who has a very good chance of being declared not guilty by the jury because he was only standing his ground and acting in self defense, want to wait two years for the court to say so and live under a cloud for all that time?

No kidding. And with the uproar over GZ that this case has generated, I would think it would be more dangerous to keep dragging this case out for a long time. It is definitely not in his client's best interests to not get this into court for two years!

 

[LolaMoon08]

Can't agree with you there. Lived in Florida for nearly 30 years and I don't like getting wet walking in the rain.

I've lived in Florida that long too and I see people everyday working out in the rain, walking in the rain, running errands in the rain, I personally like to dance in the rain and play in the rain -- as long as it isn't lightening. Rain isn't going to kill you -- you're not going to melt. I gave up on umbrellas years ago because I get just as soaked with them --- I will wear a hoodie over my head if it's raining too hard though.

I understand that you personally don't like to get wet, but a lot of people don't mind getting wet. I've been to football games in Tampa in Sept/Oct and we pray for it to rain it is so hot! I've never in my life used a poncho! Let me get wet!

 

[cityslick]

I've lived in Florida that long too and I see people everyday working out in the rain, walking in the rain, running errands in the rain, I personally like to dance in the rain and play in the rain -- as long as it isn't lightening. Rain isn't going to kill you -- you're not going to melt. I gave up on umbrellas years ago because I get just as soaked with them --- I will wear a hoodie over my head if it's raining too hard though.

I understand that you personally don't like to get wet, but a lot of people don't mind getting wet. I've been to football games in Tampa in Sept/Oct and we pray for it to rain it is so hot! I've never in my life used a poncho! Let me get wet!

Cues up 'Blame it on the Rain' by Milli Vanilli.

 

[Adrienne37]

I agree with AC's statement. She says "a reasonable person would have to believe that deadly force is necessary as opposed to just physical force". If TM is straddling GZ, and GZ had no way to escape, what were his options?

You picked the part that suited your argument when in fact she says.....

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.

So exactly how is Zimmerman going to prove that Trayvon was in the act of committing a FORCIBLE FELONY against him?


~jmo~

 

[Donjeta]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the investigation is technically still ongoing. I would think the state may have a say on how fast a trial can proceed at this stage.

I don't know, I thought he has a constitutional right to speedy trial?

F

lorida Right to Speedy Trial

Two different types of speedy trial rights exist under for a criminal case in Florida.

First, a person charged with a criminal offense is Florida is entitled to the statutory speedy trial rights provided under the Florida Constitution and Florida Statutory provisions which provide for very specific time limits - 90 days for a misdemeanor and 175 days for a felony.
Second, a person charged with a criminal offense is entitled to the federal constitutional protections under the Sixth Amendment which provide for a speedy trial even when the statutory remedy has been waived.

http://www.criminaldefenseattorneytampa.com/FloridaDefenses/SpeedyTrial.aspx

 

[csziggy]

If this is the correct Jimmy Hair, he has something very obvious in common with Trayvon as well...

http://mugshots.com/US-Counties/Florida/Leon-County-FL/Jimmy-R-Hair-Jr.6953914.html

I think we're seeing a pattern with how the SYG law is applied! I hope the DOJ will pay attention to more than just the Trayvon Martin case in their review.

 

[LolaMoon08]

Cues up 'Blame it on the Rain' by Milli Vanilli.

I LOVED Milli Vanilli!! I don't care if they lip synched! :floorlaugh:

 

[rotterdam]

Isn't it against his client's best interests?
Why would his client, an innocent man who has a very good chance of being declared not guilty by the jury because he was only standing his ground and acting in self defense, want to wait two years for the court to say so and live under a cloud for all that time?

Well, I assume , he will not be able to carry a gun during that time period.
So he will not be able to incriminate himself by leaving a trail of bodies whenever he feels skeered.

 

[GrandmaTo4]

They did not even put a bandage on GZ.
JMO

Heck no. Not even a Mickey Mouse band-aid!

Frank Taaffe was interviewed by Anderson Cooper and told him Zimmerman had a "BRUISE" on his head. The bleeding gashes that needed stitches apparently were replaced by a bruise. _ :what:

(google Anderson Cooper interview with Frank Taaffe. It was televised last week)