FL - 17-yo Teen Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #4

[Ironhorse]

Zimmerman's lawyer: 'Stand your ground' doesn't apply in Trayvon Martin case



A lawyer for the man at the center of the Trayvon Martin death investigation said Florida's "stand your ground" law doesn't apply to the shooting that killed the unarmed teen.
"In my legal opinion, that's not really applicable to this case. The statute on 'stand your ground' is primarily when you're in your house," said Craig Sonner, attorney for George Zimmerman. "This is self-defense, and that's been around for forever -- that you have a right to defend yourself. So the next issue (that) is going to come up is, was he justified in using the amount of force he did?"


http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/24/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html




I think they are going to have a hard time proving self defense also.

I wonder if there is something new that hasn't been released to the public yet that made them drop the stand your ground defense and go for straight self defense?

The Stand Your Ground law simply means you don't have to retreat. It's an expansion of the Castle Doctrine meaning any where a person might be they can defend themselves. Now that's not to say other laws are cast aside just because of it. A person is still required to use reasonable care or they could be held accountable for any negligence that may transpire as a result of their actions...

 

[rotterdam]

Especially since Obama had the audacity to say anything about it you can bet they will be working overtime to drag this kid's name through the dirt and champion his killer.
You can pretty much set your watch by the talking heads of Fox News.
Their whole mission statement is to perpetuate the notion that white property owners are a put upon discriminated against segment of society surrounded by hostile media liberals and welfare minorities.
And the kind of folks who make up their audience who desperatley want to believe this kind of garbage certainly will.
Sampling the Right Wing Blogosphere since Obama's comments its a pity that these folks dont have the insight to recognize how unseemly the Right has become in seizing on anything to take a shot at this administration.
Even the blood of teenagers.

OMG.It has started already on the blogs(Beck's The Blaze for example). Fox pretty well laid off this story and until recently had one segment vs 44 segments on CNN during the same time period. Pres. Obama has done it now and the political war of mud slinging and insane Trayvon vilifying has started.
This has hit the European main media too. And the info is quite accurate and not very flattering for the USA..
"One murder too many?" is the headline on this one. You will have to run it thru the translator.
http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2668.../03/23/Trayvon-Martin-een-moord-te-veel.dhtml

 

[momshrink]

Evasion saves your life. That is what you teach your kids when a strange man is chasing them in a neighborhood. You don't teach your kids to stand there listening to a stranger.

I taught my kids not to give any information, not their name, in fact, do not answer. Strange adults questioning children and teens usually have an ulterior motive. Trayvon was not trespassing, he had a right to be there and NW captains do not have the right to ask. They can watch and contact LE.

It was creepy for GZ to chase Trayvon, imo.

All JMO

 

[LambChop]

It's not that I'm laying blame on Mr. Martin but it would be foolish to not recognize that some of his behavior very likely added suspicion to the situation Mr. Zimmerman was confronted with. Does this wash away Mr. Zimmerman's responsibility to conduct himself in a professional manner, no it does not. However given the totality of the situation it does demonstrate how various missteps on both parties fault likely lead to this unfortunate situation...

Again Mr. Martin wasn't some child he was a 17 year old man.

This thread is recognized by WS's as a crime against a child. Legally TM was a child.

 

[LambChop]

I taught my kids not to give any information, not their name, in fact, do not answer. Strange adults questioning children and teens usually have an ulterior motive. Trayvon was not trespassing, he had a right to be there and NW captains do not have the right to ask. They can watch and contact LE.

It was creepy for GZ to chase Trayvon, imo.

All JMO

Trayvon's much younger brother was home alone so it is possible Trayvon did not want to lead this stranger to know where he was going because of his brother. It does appear TM feared this man who was following him. jmo

 

[Sensei]

The Stand Your Ground law simply means you don't have to retreat. It's an expansion of the Castle Doctrine meaning any where a person might be they can defend themselves. Now that's not to say other laws are cast aside just because of it. A person is still required to use reasonable care or they could be held accountable for any negligence that may transpire as a result of their actions...

I think that Mr Zimmerman and his Attorney are going to have a very hard road to prove that he only met force with equal force to save his life. It is going to be very difficult to equate the force of someone who is unarmed vs a loaded gun. So he has some very specific legal hurdles, he first has to PROVE that he was being attacked, that he did not begin the confrontation by touching or trying to stop Mr, Martin in any way, and that he was attacked by Mr. Martin, he is going to have to prove that he had a REASONABLE fear for his life...and the fear must be seen to be reasonable considering the totality of the circumstances, he will have to point to specific reasons that he had to fear for his life the vague idea that Mr. Martin was suspcious even though he was really doing nothing wrong is not going to be sufficient, and then he is going to have to prove that the force that he used was not excessive to stop the attack...

IMO JMHO I don't think he has a chance at this one

 

[Nali87]

I think that Mr Zimmerman and his Attorney are going to have a very hard road to prove that he only met force with equal force to save his life. It is going to be very difficult to equate the force of someone who is unarmed vs a loaded gun. So he has some very specific legal hurdles, he first has to PROVE that he was being attacked, that he did not begin the confrontation by touching or trying to stop Mr, Martin in any way, and that he was attacked by Mr. Martin, he is going to have to prove that he had a REASONABLE fear for his life...and the fear must be seen to be reasonable considering the totality of the circumstances, he will have to point to specific reasons that he had to fear for his life the vague idea that Mr. Martin was suspcious even though he was really doing nothing wrong is not going to be sufficient, and then he is going to have to prove that the force that he used was not excessive to stop the attack...

IMO JMHO I don't think he has a chance at this one

I think he has a big chance of walking. I don't know about the specifics in the States, but here the police messing up the case this badly could mean the judge could throw all evidence out. Not to mention the police didn't test Zimmerman for anything. But you are right about the reasonable fear, if you are so reasonably afraid that harm will come to you, why do you leave your car to follow the person that is causing you this fear?

 

[Ironhorse]

The trouble with Neighborhood Watch programs is they are more like guidelines rather than a set of laws. Unless the specific neighborhood sets out in writing a set of particular rules that it's volunteers are to adhere too. Then there is nothing that forbids the volunteers from exercising the same rights they would have as individuals. In other words a private citizen can ask anyone walking through their neighborhood what's their business. And unless the Neighborhood Watch program hasn't strictly forbid the carrying of firearms while serving as a neighborhood watchman. Then those individuals have right to carry a firearm in so long as they are doing so within State laws.

As for 911 dispatchers, they can only offer recommendations to a caller, the caller is under no legal obligation to obey their recommendations. Such as in the case of Sarah McKinley, an 18 year old mother who called 911 about a break-in. The 911 dispatcher Diane Graham said she couldn’t offer advice on whether she could shoot the man who was pounding on her door. At the time, McKinley was holding a shotgun and pistol after barricading the door to her trailer with a couch. The suspect eventually broke into the house and McKinley fatally shot him.

Yes, this is the ugly truth and it may not suit some people's expectations but that's how the letter of the law is, as it stands.

 

[songline]

Ok, I believe you. So that means that the post's I read saying that Trayvon had an I-Phone are incorrect?

Some people call the Android an I-Phone.
T-Mobil has an android.

 

[LambChop]

I'm still not clear on how we know GZ followed him - my impression was he didn't know where he was when he hung up with the 911 operator. He clearly says "I don't know where this kid is."

Why was Trayvon staring at Zimmerman and why, instead of going home, did he start walking toward Zimmerman and then start running?

Why didn't he just run home?

I don't expect anyone to be clairvoyant and answer these, but these questions bug me. If Zimmerman was a vigilante out to kill a black kid, why call 911 and carry on a conversation? Why get into a scuffle or even ask questions - what was all the yelling about for almost one minute, why not just shoot him and forgo the busted nose?

We don't know which direction TM had to walk to get past GZ. We do know GZ was already looking at TM as a suspect which means he probably did not have a smile on his face but a look of concern. Only GZ had the questions he wanted answered, TM was only concerned about getting home to his brother with the Skittles he had purchased for him, his ice tea he planned to drink and his conversation with his gf. If TM was walking towards him why didn't GZ ask him at that point if he lived there, or at least identify himself as security for the Neighborhood Watch. GZ didn't do any of those things and he could have easily done so. GZ didn't do it because he admitted that "they always get away." GZ goal was to keep TM on the property until the police got there and that is why he never said anything to TM. GZ was afraid TM would "get away". GZ never gave TM the benefit of the doubt and essentially became judge and jury as to why TM was on the property. This incident was never a life or death situation but for GZ. GZ was never on his own private property but within the common area of the community.

I agree 100% if GZ was in his home or on his property he has a right to ask TM why he was there. Just walking down a street it was now a police matter if GZ thought TM was up to no good. I do believe that after GZ said "OK" to the dispatcher when he told GZ he "did not have to follow" that the dispatcher thought GZ would return to his truck and wait for LE to arrive or he never would have disconnected with GZ. If the dispatcher thought in any way GZ's life was in danger he would have kept him on the line.

I also feel with his younger brother at home alone and if he feared what this man was up to, TM did not want his man to know where he was going. jmo

 

[songline]

Citing to Salem's earlier post:
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - FL - 17-yo Teen Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #3
Trayvon is considered the victim here, from what I understand.

You are right...TM is the Victim.
But Seems that Al Sharpton has changed that plan.
Making GZ a victim of circumstances.
I want to see fair trial for TM but not the way they are going at it.
It is not fair play in my book.
Al Sharpton does not do anything but set up racial riots.

 

[Nali87]

God. You guys, make me understand. Here in the Netherlands it's the prosecutors who decide whether to prosecute someone or not. The police collects evidence and presents it to the prosecutors. Do police in the States have so much power that they can decide whether or not to prosecute someone? How can you just take someone's word that he's innocent and that it was self defense?

 

[songline]

http://www.brighthand.com/default.asp?newsID=16338&news=Apple+iPhone+4G+T-Mobile

This is an old article? I also found some that says something about a T-Mobile SIM card working in an IPhone?

http://www.macworld.com/article/1160588/unlocked_iphone_4_tmobile.html

ETA: Even all those years of talking about Casey's SIM CARDS, I still have no idea what they are.

Tny card inside that caries all the data for your phone. it can be transfered to your new phone, and will have all your numbers and other info.

 

[LambChop]

The trouble with Neighborhood Watch programs is they are more like guidelines rather than a set of laws. Unless the specific neighborhood sets out in writing a set of particular rules that it's volunteers are to adhere too. Then there is nothing that forbids the volunteers from exercising the same rights they would have as individuals. In other words a private citizen can ask anyone walking through their neighborhood what's their business. And unless the Neighborhood Watch program hasn't strictly forbid the carrying of firearms while serving as a neighborhood watchman. Then those individuals have right to carry a firearm in so long as they are doing so within State laws.

As for 911 dispatchers, they can only offer recommendations to a caller, the caller is under no legal obligation to obey their recommendations. Such as in the case of Sarah McKinley, an 18 year old mother who called 911 about a break-in. The 911 dispatcher Diane Graham said she couldn’t offer advice on whether she could shoot the man who was pounding on her door. At the time, McKinley was holding a shotgun and pistol after barricading the door to her trailer with a couch. The suspect eventually broke into the house and McKinley fatally shot him.

Yes, this is the ugly truth and it may not suit some people's expectations but that's how the letter of the law is, as it stands.

Well, if this is true than a private citizen should be accountable for their actions just as a police officer who shoots an unarmed innocent citizen would be. But then there is a difference, isn't there, because a police officer can be identified right away and regardless of who you are if they want to question you you must stop and cooperate. TM was under no obligation to this man and TM's right superceded GZ right to pursue him. There paths just did not cross, GZ pursued TM. Big difference. jmo

 

[songline]

Why on earth wouldn't they give their permission to access his phone logs?? I'm sure they will get them now.

I have the same question.
Maybe just maybe it would show they were not looking for the boy the night he wnt missing.
Just maybe they did not call - would not make them look good at all.

 

[Belinda]

You are right...TM is the Victim.
But Seems that Al Sharpton has changed that plan.
Making GZ a victim of circumstances.
I want to see fair trial for TM but not the way they are going at it.
It is not fair play in my book.
Al Sharpton does not do anything but set up racial riots.

I am not a fan of Al Sharpton either and often question his motives. However, had this case been handled properly to begin with, it would not have been necessary to have Sharpton involved or rallies or school walk-outs. Sanford PD has brought this on themselves. I don't feel the least bit sorry for them or GZ.

 

[rotterdam]

I think he has a big chance of walking. I don't know about the specifics in the States, but here the police messing up the case this badly could mean the judge could throw all evidence out. Not to mention the police didn't test Zimmerman for anything. But you are right about the reasonable fear, if you are so reasonably afraid that harm will come to you, why do you leave your car to follow the person that is causing you this fear?

I also fear he has a big chance of walking but only if he is prosecuted ,provided he is even charged, in Florida. If it becomes a Fed case , he is toast.

 

[songline]

There was a considerable period of time on the 911 call when Zimmerman said Trayvon took off running - in fact, early on in the call. I listened to the tape again, and when the dispatcher asks for Zimmerman's address, he only gives the number and says - I think - "I don't want to give that, I don't know where he is." You'll have to listen to it and see if that's what you hear. The dispatcher didn't push Zimmerman for his address, so I'm going to assume that's probably what Zimmerman said.

Trayvon's father is on video, MSNBC, standing in the area where this all took place, he pointed and said Trayvon's destination was a football field away. If Trayvon was running and had a head start on Zimmerman, who was not running while on the call, he should have made it home, IMO. Why didn't he just run home?

Tht is what I want to know too...Why did not the boy just run home?
Why did he go to confront GZ???

 

[marauder]

Tht is what I want to know too...Why did not the boy just run home?
Why did he go to confront GZ???

Yeah, that "boy" was sure asking for trouble. But why not ask GZ why he stalked down and killed the poor fellow?

 

[songline]

As a young women, if someone is following me at night on the streets and I'm alone, I am not going to be interested in answering 21 questions. Especially not with all the criminals, rapists, child abductors, out there. This was at night, by someone who had been following him, by George Zimmerman own admittion. I doubt there are many people who would just stand there calmly and answers questions from someone who had been following them at night! You expect a LOT from a seventeen year old teen.

Not answering questions, is OK but...but but...but...if I was on a phone with Girlfriend who tells him you run... you may consider running home if it was only a short distance away, or telling GF to call for help... or anything other then going to confront the man who is following you...
I would never do that part NEVER.
<modsnip>