17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #31

[Reader]

Also interesting information discussed earlier from this link on the docs:

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/intake_sheet.pdf

Pre-Trial Intake Interview Sheet (signed by GZ on 4/11/12)

Height 5' 8"

Weight 185

Education H.S. Grad/No college listed

Screened by medical staff No

 

[highflyer]

That is not what the law is about though. You can confront anyone you feel like, that does not entitle them to attack you. As long as you are not threatening them directly.

If the scenario unfolded as GZ confronting TM, and then TM attacking him, CZ would have every right to use lethal force to defend himself according to the law. He was not required to back off or run away in that scenario.

I think what is confusing people is that a provocative act is not the same as an agressive act. According to the evidence we have so far GZ was behaving in a provocative manner, but not in an aggressive manner. What appears to have happened is that TM responded to the provocation with aggression, which is what led to him being dead.

But, in that scenario GZ would not have done anything wrong according to Florida law. Now, is the stand your ground law a wise law? That is a different question. IMO it is a foolish law, the use of deadly force should allways be subject to judical examination no matter what the circumstances. If someone really is defending themselves legitimately then it should be clear.

Based on the evidence we know so far, I would say that the prosecutor is responding to public sentiment rather than the facts of the case. Probably what will happen is that eventually the charges will be dismissed, but by dragging GZ through this process the prosecutor is trying to make a statement.

I think the moral of this story is that no matter how provocative someone may be, you should not attack them. Especially in a state like Florida, because once you do that you open the door for just about anything.

What you describe is a scenario where a person is able to create a situation and get away with murder. Stalk your prey, frighten them until they fear for their life and they act on that fear and then you kill them and skate? Moo.

 

[Kimster]

JMO... I do not know all the facts and evidence from any possible witnesses that can be accurate, forensics, just facts that are unknown at this time.

I do believe in innocent until proven quilty. The charge is a bondable offence, perhaps overcharged in this case to please the public of for good reason.. we or I do not know.

Two sides to every story especially based on opinions and rumors .. and then somewhree inbetween the truth.. I am going to follow the case and look at facts as they come out.

There seems to be some that wanted only the justice system to play their part, now that the accused has envokes his rights through the court system is it still not good enough for some.. I read or heard a comment on tv... where did he get the bond with family limited means... let me tell you if i was in jail.. my family would pawn, ask exteneded family, cash in life insurance, burial plots, and most DEFFINALTY take donations... so the money for bond does not matter where it came from.. he posted bond and that is that.. how dare those who will never be happy with the justice system make issue of how he posted bond.. does it matter.. he posted it as most people with family who cared would used every and all avenues to raise funds.

I simply want those on both sides to look at the justice system and not to try and make different rules on Zimmerman based on emotions or a witch hunt..

It is a misfourtune and possible a proven crime.. but we know vert little about what happened.. we where not there.. and the little bits of information on NON EMERGENCY police call... we can only speculate on the time and context of all that was said... we were not there.. not one single one of us.

I just want a fair trial.. not to put an innocent man in prison, however I do support putting a quilty verdict person in jail..

just my opinion.. just want people to look at this from a LEGAL standpoint.. however freedom of speech and expession of feelings for support or non support of Zimmerman are heartfelt and we are entitiled to that vs countries who do not have that right.

Not meant offend anyone.. not at all... i want justice as much as anyone else.

God Bless the Martin Family for the loss of their child, God Bless the Zimmerman family for threts and a possible sentence that and situation that possibly will destroy that family also.. God Bless the potesters and hate, God Bless all of us in America.

I am scared to post this due to probally a thread with much opinion againt Zimmerman. Please respect my opinion as I do respect anyone on this forum.. due to the fact that anyone on this forum CARES enough to post their opinion or theory.

Thank you if you read this and understand just the legal side and emotions on both sides...

I want to see the evidence also, sherryk. Once Zimmerman was arrested and I knew that both sides would be presented in a court of law, I felt much more at ease that justice will prevail. I don't know what that evidence is yet, but at least I know both sides will be able to present their case in court.

 

[PaintingAnemone]

That is not what the law is about though. You can confront anyone you feel like, that does not entitle them to attack you. As long as you are not threatening them directly.

If the scenario unfolded as GZ confronting TM, and then TM attacking him, CZ would have every right to use lethal force to defend himself according to the law. He was not required to back off or run away in that scenario.

I think what is confusing people is that a provocative act is not the same as an agressive act. According to the evidence we have so far GZ was behaving in a provocative manner, but not in an aggressive manner. What appears to have happened is that TM responded to the provocation with aggression, which is what led to him being dead.

But, in that scenario GZ would not have done anything wrong according to Florida law. Now, is the stand your ground law a wise law? That is a different question. IMO it is a foolish law, the use of deadly force should allways be subject to judical examination no matter what the circumstances. If someone really is defending themselves legitimately then it should be clear.

Based on the evidence we know so far, I would say that the prosecutor is responding to public sentiment rather than the facts of the case. Probably what will happen is that eventually the charges will be dismissed, but by dragging GZ through this process the prosecutor is trying to make a statement.

I think the moral of this story is that no matter how provocative someone may be, you should not attack them. Especially in a state like Florida, because once you do that you open the door for just about anything.

That isn't true, though - there is actually no known evidence either way to say which one of the two people was the attacker. During Gilbreath's testimony at the bond hearing, he stated that they had no evidence at all of which one of them threw the first punch. So to say that "TM responded to the provocation with aggression" is speculation only.
I also disagree that "a provocative act is not the same as an agressive act," in that it that makes the false assumption that provocation can't be physical (it can), or that aggression is ONLY physical (it's not). Besides, it has been discussed here quite frequently that SYG does not require that physical assault or injury be experienced in order to feel threatened and in fear of one's life. Confrontation by an armed assailant could very well make one fear for one's life, I think.

Based on the evidence that is available thus far, I would say that the prosecutor is responding to the fact that there are numerous inconsistencies with the timing and content of George Zimmerman's story, questionable intent on his part, contradictory information from witnesses, etc. Besides, wouldn't pressing charges without proper evidence and good faith in their case make the prosecutor subject to serious repercussions and possible disbarment? (That last question is a real question on my part - the prosecution can NOT knowingly bring a frivolous charge, or they open themselves up to numerous issues, right? Does anyone know more about that? Info is appreciated!)

 

[jjenny]

That isn't true, though - there is actually no known evidence either way to say which one of the two people was the attacker. During Gilbreath's testimony at the bond hearing, he stated that they had no evidence at all of which one of them threw the first punch. So to say that "TM responded to the provocation with aggression" is speculation only.
I also disagree that "a provocative act is not the same as an agressive act," in that it that makes the false assumption that provocation can't be physical (it can), or that aggression is ONLY physical (it's not). Besides, it has been discussed here quite frequently that SYG does not require that physical assault or injury be experienced in order to feel threatened and in fear of one's life. Confrontation by an armed assailant could very well make one fear for one's life, I think.

Based on the evidence that is available thus far, I would say that the prosecutor is responding to the fact that there are numerous inconsistencies with the timing and content of George Zimmerman's story, questionable intent on his part, contradictory information from witnesses, etc. Besides, wouldn't pressing charges without proper evidence and good faith in their case make the prosecutor subject to serious repercussions and possible disbarment? (That last question is a real question on my part - the prosecution can NOT knowingly bring a frivolous charge, or they open themselves up to numerous issues, right? Does anyone know more about that? Info is appreciated!)

Maybe in theory. But in practice it's very rare for a prosecutor to be punished.
They'd have to do something completely outrageous to be punished.

 

[mdana]

IMO, I think this is due to the simple reason that the family's attorneys are advocating for justice for the killing of an unarmed teenager who was doing nothing wrong, and was killed due to the unwarranted suspicions of someone who had no right to follow him and questionable stories about why he killed him. And this killing was not investigated as it should have been and was going to be swept under the rug if these attorneys had not come forward to represent his cause.

OTOH, MOM is representing said admitted killer and trying to improve his image into something he was not at the time of the killing...remorseful, kind, gentle, non violent, non threatening and humanitarian.

It's not working for me and is kind of insulting to my intelligence and feelings about the crime against Trayvon. IMO

BBM

IMO this section is factually wrong.

Unless someone has a restraining order impeding their ability to follow someone, it is legal to follow someone else if you have a legitimate reason, even if that reason ultimately turns out to be based on faulty information or impression. I can follow you and you can follow me. I can ask you questions and you can ask me questions. You can decline to engage me in conversation, and I can ignore your line of inquiry. That is the intersection of freedom of speech and freedom of movement. IMO

 

[TonyGatto]

I wonder what kind of tattoos GZ has.

 

[TorisMom003]

Zimmerman's lawyer, family and friends can say and do whatever they feel they should to try and repair his image in the media but one fact keeps glaring at me as if it were a bright neon sign.

Zimmerman chose to ignore instructions that he had received and in doing so made a very deadly decision that night. NONE of this would have happened if he had done what he had been told.

Zimmerman would not be charged with 2nd degree murder for killing Trayvon.

Trayvon would not have died that night.

If only Zimmerman had followed those instructions that night then all of this would have been avoided.

MOO

 

[Donjeta]

Update at 5:53 p.m. ET: The jail booking report reveals that Zimmerman was born in Manassas, Va., and describes several tattoos:

TATTOO ARM (LEFT) THEATRICAL MASKS

THEATRICAL MASKS

CHRISTINA INSIDE A CROSS

TATTOO CHEST CROSS

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...nter-not-guilty-plea-in-court-hearing-today/1

 

[Montjoy]

If the scenario unfolded as GZ confronting TM, and then TM attacking him, CZ would have every right to use lethal force to defend himself according to the law.

SBM

No, this is incorrect as stated, and this is one of the fundamental misunderstandings I've read repeatedly by those defending GZ. Being attacked is not in itself justification for lethal force. The person attacked needs to have a reasonable belief that s/he is in grave danger. This has been stated over and over again, but seems to be ignored, almost willfully, by those defending GZ.

 

[GrandmaTo4]

Update at 5:53 p.m. ET: The jail booking report reveals that Zimmerman was born in Manassas, Va., and describes several tattoos:

TATTOO ARM (LEFT) THEATRICAL MASKS

THEATRICAL MASKS

CHRISTINA INSIDE A CROSS

TATTOO CHEST CROSS

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...nter-not-guilty-plea-in-court-hearing-today/1

"Christina" is his mother, Gladys', middle name, I believe.

The theatrical masks are interesting. Is George interested in acting -- pretending -- being someone he isn't?

I still think an earlier poster's mention of "little man complex" is extremely apropos.

imho

 

[mdana]

I've said it a few times but IMO, TM was approached, possibly grabbed, touched, or shoved up against the outside wall in the space between one of the homes. IMO, the elbow of the sleeve of Trayvon's hooded sweatshirt should be tested for GZ's DNA. It is my belief that GZ laid hands on TM and Trayvon did the natural next thing and elbowed GZ causing him to loose his balance and fall backwards. Infuriated GZ probably did what he has done so many times before...he went after Trayvon and this time he happened to be armed with a 9MM semi-automatic loaded with hollow point bullets.

Witnesses say that they heard voices and then the yelling which moved toward where TM was ultimately shot.[/QUOT

One of the ear witnesses said they heard voices but one authoritative voice that was distinguishable. That must have been GZ. So that should prove he was illegally detaining Trayvon and must have, at some point, pulled his gun, and that is when Trayvon may have started screaming in terror. I hope that witness will be pivotal, because how could GZ go from authoritative voice to a young voice screaming in terror? I hope that made sense. jmo

She is stating this after the fact and all the news reports that have have been misleading at times. We have no idea if her statements now coincide with what she she stated at the time of the shooting. My biggest question about her (besides her expertise at discerning which person was authoritative since she had never heard either one speak before) is why does a witness to a shooting that has an indisputable shooter need an attorney?

 

[mikeysmommom]

SBM

No, this is incorrect as stated, and this is one of the fundamental misunderstandings I've read repeatedly by those defending GZ. Being attacked is not in itself justification for lethal force. The person attacked needs to have a reasonable belief that s/he is in grave danger. This has been stated over and over again, but seems to be ignored, almost willfully, by those defending GZ.

IMO I find it very reasonable to believe that GZ had fear for his life at the time this happened.JMO But how can anyone know what is enough to cause a person to have reasonable fear.If I was punched and knocked down and then had a person on top of me hitting my head even once on a sidewalk I would fear for my life.Witnesses did see TM on top of GZ hitting him.

 

[Tugela]

SBM

No, this is incorrect as stated, and this is one of the fundamental misunderstandings I've read repeatedly by those defending GZ. Being attacked is not in itself justification for lethal force. The person attacked needs to have a reasonable belief that s/he is in grave danger. This has been stated over and over again, but seems to be ignored, almost willfully, by those defending GZ.

If someone who is larger than you is beating on you, I'd say that is reasonable grounds for believing that you are in grave danger.

Well, I would believe that. Perhaps you might believe something else.

 

[rbrnmw2]

It wasn't even an apology, it was condolences and he did not have enough respect for them to say I would like to offer my....... and give them a chance to say don't. IMO

good post I totally agree

:goodpost:

 

[Concerned Papa]

With respect to your video... How many shootings/killings were reported in that area? Would that not mean that "This is pretty much out of the ordinary for this neighborhood"? What was that officer's normal patrol area? When was he normally on duty? Was he normally on duty when Zimmerman made his 8 calls a year? Do you think that a loud music report is more comparable to reporting a kid walking down the street by himself, or the shooting of an individual?

How odd......an officer's statement that's only 7 seconds long provokes all of these questions that have nothing to do with the point and title of "Smoke and Mirrors". Perhaps writing it out would be more understandable?

"We generally don't get ANY calls to this area. If we do, it's maybe a loud music call or something like that"

versus

In all, police had been called to the 260-unit complex 402 times from Jan. 1, 2011 to Feb. 26, 2012.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/v-fullstory/2700249/trayvon-martin-shooter-a-habitual.html

Hence the title:

Smoke and Mirrors
noun

Something that distorts or blurs facts, figures, etc., like a magic or conjuring trick; artful deception.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/smoke+and+mirrors?s=t

I started to call it "A False Dichotomy", but somehow that just didn't have the right ring to it, KWIM?

I'm only aware of ONE unarmed 17 year old kid being shot in that town or neighborhood during the same time frame, and Officer Tim got the drop on the shooter rather quickly, didn't he?

 

[Gin]

That is not what the law is about though. You can confront anyone you feel like, that does not entitle them to attack you. As long as you are not threatening them directly.

If the scenario unfolded as GZ confronting TM, and then TM attacking him, CZ would have every right to use lethal force to defend himself according to the law. He was not required to back off or run away in that scenario.

I think what is confusing people is that a provocative act is not the same as an agressive act. According to the evidence we have so far GZ was behaving in a provocative manner, but not in an aggressive manner. What appears to have happened is that TM responded to the provocation with aggression, which is what led to him being dead.

But, in that scenario GZ would not have done anything wrong according to Florida law. Now, is the stand your ground law a wise law? That is a different question. IMO it is a foolish law, the use of deadly force should allways be subject to judical examination no matter what the circumstances. If someone really is defending themselves legitimately then it should be clear.

Based on the evidence we know so far, I would say that the prosecutor is responding to public sentiment rather than the facts of the case. Probably what will happen is that eventually the charges will be dismissed, but by dragging GZ through this process the prosecutor is trying to make a statement.

I think the moral of this story is that no matter how provocative someone may be, you should not attack them. Especially in a state like Florida, because once you do that you open the door for just about anything.

JMO/IMO
BBM--As the law stands now, you may have a point. I don't think your average kid in Florida really understands the current situation with SYG. It's probably time for Florida to add SYG warnings to the school curriculum. Children and teens need to know that they should be meek and cooperative with strangers that want to talk to them. Anything they do otherwise could be a provocation...and and worst case scenario, they could be shot.

The other group that needs a similiar warning are tourists.

The whole situation is just pathetic.

 

[ScubaTwinn]

Since he has seen the facts and we have not, I tend to believe GZ acted under the SYG law.Lee made a mistake saying GZ said "hey do you live here"instead of what TM gf said "what are you doing here" IMo not a big deal.If I spent 30 yrs doing my job with Le and people who had no idea of the facts of this case saying the police were not doing their job I would be annoyed too.JMO He is a scapegoat.

And I cannot stop thinking if only he'd prefaced his question with "I'm with the Neighborhood Watch.....", we probably wouldn't be here.

I wonder what GZ's response was to the question - Did you identify yourself?

LinasK - Have you ever been in a position where you identified yourself with your Neighborhood Watch? TIA.

 

[Gin]

And I cannot stop thinking if only he'd prefaced his question with "I'm with the Neighborhood Watch.....", we probably wouldn't be here.

JMO/IMO
Except that the role of neighborhood watch is to WATCH. It's not to accost, challenge, or demand. Z had no business bothering Trayvon at all. If you see something, call the (real) police. No neighborhood watch group endorses profiling, challenging, or following.

 

[Ironhorse]

So even if GZ acted within the law, you believe it has to go to trial just to appease the public?If there was a problem with law enforcement not doing their job correctly ,then it will come out and be dealt with.But IMO to say GZ even if covered under the SYG law needs to go to trial JMO is not what should happen under the law he should never have been arrested but due to outside groups and pressure he was.This is a very slippery slop for all of us IMO if the law can be disregarded just so there is no violence is blackmail to me.

Agreed... The Law says:
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force ~
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

In other words should Zimmerman be acquitted the taxpayers will have to reimburse him for attorney fees, court cost, loss of income and other incurred expenses. Plus he'll now have a civil suit in which he can file suit against the State for violating a law he was protected under...IMO