Trayvon Martin and the return of a quaint southern tradition.

[vtboy]

Horrific enough in their own right, the lynchings which were trademarks of the Jim Crow south were made all the more appalling by the complicity, active or tacit, of state and local police, prosecutors, and courts. I fail to see how the response of both police and prosecutor to Trayvon Martin's likely lynching may be viewed as different in kind or wickedness. 

The "stand your ground" statute the police claim deprived them of probable cause to arrest Trayvon's admitted killer may be viewed through the following link (the relevant provision is paragraph 3):

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

The danger inherent in the law is patent, and one has to wonder what Florida's legislators intended, if not to encourage incidents like this one. Even with the law's evident failings, though, the conclusion of police, that the killer's self-serving profession of fear was sufficient to dispel probable cause, stands as an indictment of their own office.

Sometimes I think I no longer recognize this country, and then sadly I realize I do.

[Singularity]

Yeah the Sanford Police are immersed in the rot up to their necks.

It's almost as if when they responded to the shooting, they asked him, "was this self defense?"

To which he responded. "Uhh, yea, sure!"

Prompting the cops to shrug, turn about and do nothing.[/font]

[Callie Del Noire]

1. The failure of the Sanford, FL police to follow up on a man with a hisotry of hurried judgments is tragic yes but it's not a criminal conspiracy.
2. While I feel for the family, I am a LITTLE dubious about the profession of the girlfriend and her recollection of the call.

That being said... do I think Mr. Zimmerman shot down Trayvon Martin in a moment of fear or hyped up authority as a 'guard of the community'? Yes, I think he did willfully, and without a clear and present danger from the poor boy, shoot him out of hand.

That doesn't mean it was a lynching. I think it was, at least in part, racially motivated and Zimmerman was profiling the poor kid. I think he was a jumped up little bureaucrat who was given too much authority and had illegally brought a gun to his job. (the rules he operated on didn't call for sidearms).

I'm calling it a tragedy..and that is what is was.. it was NOT a lynching.

[Oniya]

I was disgusted to hear that Geraldo Rivera is blathering on that Trayvon's hoodie was part of the reason he got shot.  When he got called out on how that's just like blaming a rape victim for what she was wearing, Geraldo responded:

“The woman in six-inch heels a short skirt and a low-cut blouse is no threat to you, but you tell me, what would you do if you saw a young man, black man or a Latino man coming your way on the sidewalks with his face hidden? I tell you what, you’d walk across the street or you’d put your head down and not make eye contact,” he said.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74392_Page2.html

Frankly, I'd like to show him how much of a threat a six-inch stiletto heel can be by standing on his... instep (physics is a wonderful thing, as is the concept of lb/in²).  Zimmerman had a gun.  If I had a gun and a young man with a hoodie was walking towards me, I wouldn't consider him a threat for the simple fact of the 'Great Equalizer' in my concealed carry holster.  If he was running (or even walking quickly) away from me, I wouldn't consider him a threat even if I didn't have a gun.

[Iniquitous]

1. The failure of the Sanford, FL police to follow up on a man with a hisotry of hurried judgments is tragic yes but it's not a criminal conspiracy.
2. While I feel for the family, I am a LITTLE dubious about the profession of the girlfriend and her recollection of the call.

That being said... do I think Mr. Zimmerman shot down Trayvon Martin in a moment of fear or hyped up authority as a 'guard of the community'? Yes, I think he did willfully, and without a clear and present danger from the poor boy, shoot him out of hand.

That doesn't mean it was a lynching. I think it was, at least in part, racially motivated and Zimmerman was profiling the poor kid. I think he was a jumped up little bureaucrat who was given too much authority and had illegally brought a gun to his job. (the rules he operated on didn't call for sidearms).

I'm calling it a tragedy..and that is what is was.. it was NOT a lynching.

Zimmerman was not 'employed' by the gated community. He was self appointed.

And all you need do is listen to the 911 calls from the neighbors and you can HEAR Trayvon screaming for help - screaming for his life - before the gunshot. Not too mention, Zimmerman was TOLD by a police dispatcher to stand down and not follow Trayvon.

The whole case disgusts me to no end and I hope the FBI and the Justice Dept do throw Zimmerman in prison. Add the police chief and everyone else who muddled this case up.

[RubySlippers]

What gets me people always had a common law right to self-defense with reasonable force, as a disabled person that is even broader as long as there was an immediate threat. This law ,and I live in Florida, goes way beyond that common sense principle.

Say someone goes after me on the street with a knife I would in my case be justified in using a gun the law favors me since I would need superior force to counter my disability drawback in the fight, but if he was walking off after drawing the gun I could not shoot the threat is over.

[Callie Del Noire]

Zimmerman was not 'employed' by the gated community. He was self appointed.

And all you need do is listen to the 911 calls from the neighbors and you can HEAR Trayvon screaming for help - screaming for his life - before the gunshot. Not too mention, Zimmerman was TOLD by a police dispatcher to stand down and not follow Trayvon.

The whole case disgusts me to no end and I hope the FBI and the Justice Dept do throw Zimmerman in prison. Add the police chief and everyone else who muddled this case up.

Oh it disgusts me.. And yeah I knew he was a volunteer.. but the regs of the neighborhood watch didn't call for him to be armed and he was. The man has a history of 'jumping the gun' as can be seen by his calls to the cops.

Do I think he killed that boy.. yes. Did I think it was premeditated.. I'm not sure.. He killed that kid. Yes. Definitely. Without cause in my opinon. Was it a lynching. No. It was, at least in part, racially motivated despite everything Zimmerman and family have said. He killed that kid. Without cause in my opinion.

It was NOT a lynching though

[vtboy]

1. The failure of the Sanford, FL police to follow up on a man with a hisotry of hurried judgments is tragic yes but it's not a criminal conspiracy.
2. While I feel for the family, I am a LITTLE dubious about the profession of the girlfriend and her recollection of the call.

That being said... do I think Mr. Zimmerman shot down Trayvon Martin in a moment of fear or hyped up authority as a 'guard of the community'? Yes, I think he did willfully, and without a clear and present danger from the poor boy, shoot him out of hand.

That doesn't mean it was a lynching. I think it was, at least in part, racially motivated and Zimmerman was profiling the poor kid. I think he was a jumped up little bureaucrat who was given too much authority and had illegally brought a gun to his job. (the rules he operated on didn't call for sidearms).

I'm calling it a tragedy..and that is what is was.. it was NOT a lynching.

It will be for a jury, assuming the case ever reaches one, to determine whether Zimmerman's act was murder and, if Florida has a hate crime law, whether Martin's color figured into the crime. If the answer to both questions is "yes", this was a lynching. But even if this is ultimately determined to be something else -- a justifiable use of deadly force, a tragic error, a psychotic episode, or some other species of homicide -- what makes it astonishingly similar to a lynching, in my mind, is the utter indifference of officials to the violent death of a black kid at the hands of a white posse. For the police to have concluded probable cause was lacking, solely on the basis of the killer's statement, and in disregard of evidence that the killer had been stalking this kid, is very much the way authorities treated the harvest of the strange fruit of southern trees.

[Callie Del Noire]

It will be for a jury, assuming the case ever reaches one, to determine whether Zimmerman's act was murder and, if Florida has a hate crime law, whether Martin's color figured into the crime. If the answer to both questions is "yes", this was a lynching. But even if this is ultimately determined to be something else -- a justifiable use of deadly force, a tragic error, a psychotic episode, or some other species of homicide -- what makes it astonishingly similar to a lynching, in my mind, is the utter indifference of officials to the violent death of a black kid at the hands of a white posse. For the police to have concluded probable cause was lacking, solely on the basis of the killer's statement, and in disregard of evidence that the killer had been stalking this kid, is very much the way authorities treated the harvest of the strange fruit of southern trees.

Not.. it will be a murder with a hate crime cause. A lynching is an extralegal murder by a group. One on one.. it's MURDER. I dislike it being promoted as such because it: a) wasn't. b.) if he is guilty it gives the defense leverage to push it out.

The media likes using inflamatory terms that don't apply. It was one on one. A frightened, and possibly racist, man with a gun shooting down a poor boy whose only crime was trying to avoid him while being black.

I'm more than a little concerned about the lack of speed by the Sanford cops in doing ANYTHING in the case till the feds started doing oversight.

[vtboy]

Not.. it will be a murder with a hate crime cause. A lynching is an extralegal murder by a group. One on one.. it's MURDER. I dislike it being promoted as such because it: a) wasn't. b.) if he is guilty it gives the defense leverage to push it out.

The media likes using inflamatory terms that don't apply. It was one on one. A frightened, and possibly racist, man with a gun shooting down a poor boy whose only crime was trying to avoid him while being black.

I'm more than a little concerned about the lack of speed by the Sanford cops in doing ANYTHING in the case till the feds started doing oversight.

OK, not a lynching because no mob.

The official sin was not, however, lack of dispatch, as you suggest. Indeed, the police acted with great alacrity in concluding Zimmerman was blameless. I understand the police made their determination not to arrest in less than an hour and were adamant in their refusal to allow evidence to get in its way. And then, stalwart adherents to due process that they are, the police remained firm in their conviction, and in their aversion to evidence, despite the opportunity for clearer reflection afforded by the passage of the next three weeks. I have seen petit larcenies investigated with greater diligence and urgency.

Black Martin is dead under circumstances establishing probable cause for murder or at least voluntary manslaughter. White Zimmerman remains at liberty.

Now, how again is this different from the classic official reaction to tree limbs festooned with black corpses?

[vtboy]

I was disgusted to hear that Geraldo Rivera is blathering on that Trayvon's hoodie was part of the reason he got shot.  When he got called out on how that's just like blaming a rape victim for what she was wearing, Geraldo responded:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74392_Page2.html

Frankly, I'd like to show him how much of a threat a six-inch stiletto heel can be by standing on his... instep (physics is a wonderful thing, as is the concept of lb/in²).  Zimmerman had a gun.  If I had a gun and a young man with a hoodie was walking towards me, I wouldn't consider him a threat for the simple fact of the 'Great Equalizer' in my concealed carry holster.  If he was running (or even walking quickly) away from me, I wouldn't consider him a threat even if I didn't have a gun.

Of course, walking to the other side of the street or avoiding eye contact are preferred responses to that of shooting the hoodied kid in states that have not adopted the NRA-drafted "stand your ground" law.

[Oniya]

My point is that Geraldo suggested that it is 'reasonable' to make a threat-response just because a non-Caucasian is wearing a hoodie, not whether one threat-response is better than another.

Black Martin is dead under circumstances establishing probable cause for murder or at least voluntary manslaughter. White Hispanic Zimmerman remains at liberty.

If we're going with facts, here.

If it was racially motivated (and at least one of the 911 calls does seem to indicate bias), it is no less a hate crime than NJ v. Ravi earlier this month.  I'd even class it as more of a hate crime, as Ravi didn't physically push his roommate off the George Washington Bridge, while Zimmerman took the effort to aim and fire.

I'm glad that the FBI is investigating.  I can't, for the life of me, come up with a rational explanation for why Zimmerman wasn't arrested - hell, when a cop shoots someone, they confiscate his gun, and it goes through Internal Affairs.  This man shows every symptom of 'big fish, small pond' when you consider his nearly 50 911 calls over the past year where he reported open garages and 'suspicious individuals'.

[Callie Del Noire]

Now, how again is this different from the classic official reaction to tree limbs festooned with black corpses?

It perpetuates an outlook that makes it a sin to be white (or looking white in Zimmerman's case..he's hispanic according to his family). I have taken a TON of crap in service and overseas because I have a southern accent.

My nose is crooked because of it. I got DOZENS of boxer fractures in my hands for being 'southern american'. I've had the race/racist card played on me DOZENS of times because the offender I pulled up was not white. I had to explain myself in front of a Master Chief for doing my damn job because some tool said I was 'racist'.

I hate to say it.. sometimes it's just a shooting. From what I have heard on the local news (Sanford is like an hour away from where I live), Zimmerman might have done the same thing to a white kid that didn't fit in (to his outlook) of people in the neighborhood.

It's a goddamn tragedy that Trayvon Martin got shot, and I personally think it was near criminally inept for the cops to drag their feet like they did. If they had a lick of sense they would have laid out a press conference to defuse the media situation and followed up with a more through investigation.

I think personally Zimmerman jumped the gun..and the poor kid paid the price. I also think the damn media is stirring things up. I was in Maryland when the Beltway sniper was around and the media there demonstrated how they could really FUCK up things.

And speaking as a southerner who grew up in the South, with a side trip to Europe, and who can trace my family tree in the South (aside from Native Americans) to the 1600s.. I find the 'quaint southern tradition' crap offensive. Most of us, media to the contrary, have grown up and matured.


FYI.. everytime I got called up in service for being a 'redneck racist' I've had someone who wasn't white stand up and call bullshit. And anything coming out of Geraldo's mouth is automatically flagged as 'trying to get a rise out of the audience' in my book.

[Sabre]

I'm glad that the FBI is investigating.  I can't, for the life of me, come up with a rational explanation for why Zimmerman wasn't arrested

If people have difficulty, it's because they are always affected by the very first story in which they learn about this shooting.  And in the first week it was dominated by the old media adage of race war broiling under the everyday surface of America.

First Law of Media: offer the viewer the opportunity to debate the conclusions, but force him to accept the form of the argument.  You get to debate whether or not Zimmerman here is a white, old-time Jim Crow one-man lynch mob: "He's a Klansman!" or "Innocent until proven guilty!" or whether this is a new racism in America, as long as you unconsciously accept that Martin died because he was the wrong race at the wrong time.  Add in a dash of cheap rhetoric - lynching, Jim Crow, Deep South, 'white' on black hate crime - and you've got ratings.  Juicy race war brought to you by Revlon and Cash4Gold.com.

Zimmerman is guilty (without trial as far as the rest of the nation is concerned), but as the usual sacrifice so none of us have to feel guilty.  "He's racist!"  Which is the instant call for everyone to be disgusted with him and know at least they're normal and well-adjusted right before they go back to living isolated lives in gated communities suspicious of neighbors and anyone that doesn't drive.  The problem with the logic, however, is how Zimmerman somehow missed 40+ chances to be racist in the past year he had been making phone calls to the police.  Unless these were all cases of open windows or strangers who happened to be not-black until Rayvon Martin appeared, the irrationality of racism seems unlikely.

This is a very different kind of sociopathy, unfortunately.  Siege mentality, the perversion of the old Castle Doctrine that creeps into gated communities that Zimmerman and his neighbors live in.  Martin's most damning crime in Zimmerman's eyes was likely being a trespassing outsider walking in a community where everyone drove.

[Callie Del Noire]

This is a very different kind of sociopathy, unfortunately.  Siege mentality, the perversion of the old Castle Doctrine that creeps into gated communities that Zimmerman and his neighbors live in.  Martin's most damning crime in Zimmerman's eyes was likely being a trespassing outsider walking in a community where everyone drove.

I think, either from hate or fear, that Zimmerman reacted badly in a situation, similar he had been told in the past to avoid doing by the police, and shot that boy.

The tragedy is that he killed an innocent kid. I don't exactly think the law as cited in the beginning post completely clears him and there should have been more looking into it.

I agree the media is stirring this up for all it's worth.

[Chris Brady]

My point is that Geraldo suggested that it is 'reasonable' to make a threat-response just because a non-Caucasian is wearing a hoodie, not whether one threat-response is better than another.

The issue is that there is a higher probability that someone in a hoodie is likely to BE a threat.  Especially since hoodies are still the mark of a likely gang member.  Personally I love hoodies, but unfortunately, a lot of disaffected youths do to, and a lot of them seem to be drawn to violence.  And given that a lot of coloured gangs are equally, if not more racist, than whites, I'm not sure I blame Mr. Riviera his statement (Most of the really violent coloured gangs tend to attack or focus on a single nationality, often whites, as the reason for their 'predicament' and will assault.  Racism, sadly, isn't a white only activity, despite what the media, or gangs want to imply.  It's equal opportunity hatemongering.)  It's ugly, but it's got an element of truth.

However, Mr. Zimmerman was not justified in his actions.  He had no probable cause, this was premeditated.  He had a gun, and intent to use it.  This is Murder 1.

[Callie Del Noire]

However, Mr. Zimmerman was not justified in his actions.  He had no probable cause, this was premeditated.  He had a gun, and intent to use it.  This is Murder 1.

I don't think it was premeditated.. this has the feel of a guy strutting his stuff off and letting adrenaline and fear push him to do something stupid. It's still murder.. but I'm not sure he MEANT to shoot the poor kid till he pulled the gun and shot.

[Chris Brady]

I don't think it was premeditated.. this has the feel of a guy strutting his stuff off and letting adrenaline and fear push him to do something stupid. It's still murder.. but I'm not sure he MEANT to shoot the poor kid till he pulled the gun and shot.

I disagree.  He brought a gun, where his job didn't entail the right, and was likely to use it.

Of course, the courts are a better way to judge this.  But I hold he should be tried under first degree murder.

[Iniquitous]

Again, it WASN'T his job. At all. He was self appointed. Period. He is a vigilante plain and simple.

[Callie Del Noire]

Again, it WASN'T his job. At all. He was self appointed. Period. He is a vigilante plain and simple.

Neighborhood watch .. they are all volunteers. I know that he broke the rules with the gun..

[Chris Brady]

Again, it WASN'T his job. At all. He was self appointed. Period. He is a vigilante plain and simple.

Exactly, Murder 1.  He intended to kill someone. Trayvon Martin was in the wrong place and was the poor victim.

[Sabre]

And all you need do is listen to the 911 calls from the neighbors and you can HEAR Trayvon screaming for help - screaming for his life - before the gunshot.

The Sanford Police are saying the voice belonged to Zimmerman.

[Beguile's Mistress]

The Sanford Police are saying the voice belonged to Zimmerman.

That is where I would demand a voice analysis be done.

[Rinzler]

The Sanford Police are saying the voice belonged to Zimmerman.

Yeah, I'm sure I'd be yelling for help if I had a gun and someone was threatening me with a bag of Skittles and a can of drink. :-/

[vtboy]

If people have difficulty, it's because they are always affected by the very first story in which they learn about this shooting.  And in the first week it was dominated by the old media adage of race war broiling under the everyday surface of America.

First Law of Media: offer the viewer the opportunity to debate the conclusions, but force him to accept the form of the argument.  You get to debate whether or not Zimmerman here is a white, old-time Jim Crow one-man lynch mob: "He's a Klansman!" or "Innocent until proven guilty!" or whether this is a new racism in America, as long as you unconsciously accept that Martin died because he was the wrong race at the wrong time.  Add in a dash of cheap rhetoric - lynching, Jim Crow, Deep South, 'white' on black hate crime - and you've got ratings.  Juicy race war brought to you by Revlon and Cash4Gold.com.

Zimmerman is guilty (without trial as far as the rest of the nation is concerned), but as the usual sacrifice so none of us have to feel guilty.  "He's racist!"  Which is the instant call for everyone to be disgusted with him and know at least they're normal and well-adjusted right before they go back to living isolated lives in gated communities suspicious of neighbors and anyone that doesn't drive.  The problem with the logic, however, is how Zimmerman somehow missed 40+ chances to be racist in the past year he had been making phone calls to the police.  Unless these were all cases of open windows or strangers who happened to be not-black until Rayvon Martin appeared, the irrationality of racism seems unlikely.

This is a very different kind of sociopathy, unfortunately.  Siege mentality, the perversion of the old Castle Doctrine that creeps into gated communities that Zimmerman and his neighbors live in.  Martin's most damning crime in Zimmerman's eyes was likely being a trespassing outsider walking in a community where everyone drove.

Let's be clear here. The focus of the media, and of this thread, has not been Zimmerman's guilt or innocence, but official indifference to the killing of a 17 year-old black kid, without any apparent objective justification. They authorities were also indifferent to repeated inquiries made by the family when the Trayvon went missing, failing for days to notify them of his killing.

Zimmerman's reasons for the shooting would certainly be of paramount importance to a jury in deciding guilt or innocence under Florida's ridiculous "stand your ground" law. So, too, if Florida has a hate crime law. Unfortunately, the police took it upon themselves to usurp the jury's function by effectively acquitting Zimmerman of all charges through the simple expedient of concluding no probable cause for his arrest.

In the absence of evidence virtually excluding any reasonable possibility Zimmerman acted out of anything but a rational and honestly held belief he was the target of an attack (the "stand your ground" legal standard), however, it is inconceivable the police could fairly have concluded they lacked probable cause to arrest him for murder or manslaughter. Even indulging the assumption the initial decision was the product of mere ineptitude, adherence to that decision over the ensuing three weeks, when it must have been considered coolly at all levels of the chain of command, speaks of something far worse than incompetence. 

However faulty its judgments in other circumstances, the media has been entirely correct in the attention it has devoted to the deplorable conduct of the police in giving Zimmerman a "get-out-of jail free pass" and in questioning whether race played a part. Zimmerman's racial animus, or lack thereof, has never been the main thrust of the story.

[Rinzler]

Seems a clue as regards Zimmerman's attitudes towards race has been unearthed:
Trayvon Martin 911 Call - Did George Zimmerman Say 'F*ng Coons'?

[Sabre]

That is where I would demand a voice analysis be done.

I believe they had Martin's father listen to it, and claim they have eyewitnesses to corroborate.

Yeah, I'm sure I'd be yelling for help if I had a gun and someone was threatening me with a bag of Skittles and a can of drink. :-/

Fists are a common go-to weapon in assault and in self-defense.  It should be no laughing matter just as guns are not trivialized.

Let's be clear here. The focus of the media, and of this thread, has not been Zimmerman's guilt or innocence, but official indifference to the killing of a 17 year-old black kid, without any apparent objective justification. They authorities were also indifferent to repeated inquiries made by the family when the Trayvon went missing, failing for days to notify them of his killing.

Zimmerman's supposed guilt or innocence is the very reason there is outrage concerning the police and prosecution.  It is especially prevalent in the viral videos and blog chatter in the first few days of the national outrage - that the police were wrong not to arrest Zimmerman.  By Stand Your Ground laws, they claimed to not have had sufficient cause to charge him.

Without that supposition of guilt, one that was everywhere in the early days of the outcry and the reason it became so, the officials in charge of the investigation would not be facing accusations of 'official indifference.'

[Callie Del Noire]

The vibe I get from the reports on Zimmerman, what with him ring a gun and repeated incidents in the past, that he is a self important twerp on a power trip that finally went one step too far. I hondstly don't see how a boy trying to get away from an older ARMED man is a good shoot.

[Oniya]

I don't trivialize the use of fists in an assault, but you're talking the difference between a melee weapon - one that is only effective at the distance of an arm's length or closer - and a ranged weapon.  As the saying goes, you don't bring a knife (or a fist) to a gun fight.

Also, Zimmerman had to reasonably fear death or great bodily harm in order for this to be self-defense.  He got out of his truck and pursued the 'suspicious individual'.  That's not the sort of thing that typically indicates fear of death or great bodily harm. 

[Sabre]

The difference is meaningless in determining the threat the other weapon poses.  Especially if the more deadly weapon was not fired until said gun fight was already a fist fight.

Also, Zimmerman had to reasonably fear death or great bodily harm in order for this to be self-defense.  He got out of his truck and pursued the 'suspicious individual'.  That's not the sort of thing that typically indicates fear of death or great bodily harm. 

The beating he sustained and the injuries received according to the paramedics is enough for self-defense fearing harm or death.  Getting out of his truck and approaching Martin was not illegal, nor does it invalidate any claim to self-defense.

[vtboy]

Zimmerman's supposed guilt or innocence is the very reason there is outrage concerning the police and prosecution.  It is especially prevalent in the viral videos and blog chatter in the first few days of the national outrage - that the police were wrong not to arrest Zimmerman.  By Stand Your Ground laws, they claimed to not have had sufficient cause to charge him.

Without that supposition of guilt, one that was everywhere in the early days of the outcry and the reason it became so, the officials in charge of the investigation would not be facing accusations of 'official indifference.'

Sabre, with all respect, I think you are missing the point.

The accusations of official indifference, at least those from more responsible commentators, are not based on conclusions about Zimmerman's legal guilt for the killing he admitted having committed. Indeed, much of the criticism in the media has been over Florida's "stand your ground" law which extends the justification defense to murder and manslaughter to those who kill despite the availability of less drastic alternatives. Such commentary necessarily recognizes that Zimmerman might well be found not guilty. The widespread reproach drawn by the police does not spring from Zimmerman absence from death row. Rather, censure has been leveled at them because their conclusion that they lacked probable cause to arrest Zimmerman -- a standard well below that required for conviction -- was so faulty as to call into very serious question whether it was the product of indifference or even out and out bias.

The undisputed facts known at the time of the incident, as I understand them, were these: (1) Martin was dead from a gunshot wound; (2) Zimmerman admitted shooting martin; (3) Zimmerman, a self-appointed Neighborhood Watch captain, stalked Martin before the shooting; (4) Zimmerman was instructed by the 911 dispatcher to stop following Martin; (5) Zimmerman was armed (perhaps in violation of Neighborhood Watch rules), and Martin was not; (6) Martin attempted to avoid Zimmerman, and perhaps even ran, from him; and (7) the only evidence Zimmerman acted in self defense was his own self-serving account.

Under these circumstances, the failure of the police to find they had sufficient cause to take Zimmerman into custody and hold him for arraignment on homicide charges can only shock the conscience.

Moreover, the quantum of evidence in favor of probable cause has only grown since the incident, as Martin's girlfriend has since reported to the police that, in a cell phone conversation immediately before the shooting, Martin told her he was being followed, and that she heard part of the ensuing encounter. Though the girlfriend's credibility may be open to question, that is an issue to be decided by a jury, not by the police. There is also now an electronically improved copy of the recording of Zimmerman's 911 call, from which it appears he may have uttered the words, "fucking coon." Though admission of the recording into evidence at trial would require an audibility hearing and, if the recording were admitted, Zimmerman's speech might still be subject to differing interpretations, these again are not matters for final police determination. Even assuming for argument's sake the initial decision not to arrest might somehow have been justified, the accretion of evidence since the killing has rendered adherence to that decision completely indefensible.       

The media have not called for Zimmerman's lynching, only for the police to do their job and turn Zimmerman over to the courts. That the police have not done so provides at least probable cause to believe they are either indifferent to the deaths of hoodied, black, male teenagers or willing to accord special treatment to private posses. Neither alternative is appealing.   

[vtboy]

My point is that Geraldo suggested that it is 'reasonable' to make a threat-response just because a non-Caucasian is wearing a hoodie, not whether one threat-response is better than another.

I understood your point, Oniya. However, I don't think that Geraldo was entirely wrong in suggesting that the way we decorate ourselves sends messages and that, under certain circumstances, it is not entirely inappropriate to heed them. And, yes, that it is also not entirely irrational, in certain places at certain times, for skin color, gender and ethnicity to enter into the threat calculus. I understand that donning gangsta attire is most often only a fashion statement. Nevetheless, a hoodie communicates something quite different from the message that would be conveyed by a Brooks Brothers suit on the same kid. Similarly, I get a bit more queasy in bars when two or three unkempt white guys, having just dismounted chopped Harleys, enter in coal-scuttle helmets and iron crosses, than I would if they arrived by automobile and wore khakis and boat shoes.

My point was that, regrettable as it may be for color and ethnicity to figure into threat perception, it is always bad policy for government to enact laws which permit people, outside of their homes, to respond to those perceptions with deadly force in any but the unavoidable last resort.   

[Iniquitous]

Alright. My issues with this case.

If you feel threatened by someone walking down the sidewalk with a hoodie on, do you stalk them and confront them or do you get the hell away from them? Me? I sure as hell would NOT be stalking someone I felt threatened by, gun or no gun. My ass would be getting somewhere safe.

Zimmerman claims that he was assaulted by Trayvon. Has anyone stopped to consider this poor kid KNEW he was being stalked, he tried to get away from Zimmerman and the man STILL came after him and confronted him? We tell our children to scream and fight when strangers approach them. We tell our children to protect themselves. Is this reason for Zimmerman to pull a gun and shoot the kid? Hell no.

At the very least this was a ‘perfect storm’. Idiot Zimmerman deciding he was the ‘law’ in the neighborhood out with a loaded gun feeling ‘threatened’ by a hooded black male walking home in the rain and ignoring direct orders from a police dispatcher to stalk the male he considered a suspect. Trayvon, knowing he is being followed and not knowing why feels threatened, tries to get away and can’t, sets about to try and defend himself as we tell all children to do. End result - Trayvon is dead, the cops do NOT do their job and Zimmerman walks with his gun privileges and the family of Trayvon is not told for three days what has happened.

Right there, there is no mention of whether Zimmerman had racial motives. It is a very simple layout of the situation and does take into account that Trayvon may have ‘assaulted’ Zimmerman. I can tell you this… if I was walking home at night and being followed, could not get away from the one stalking me and was hostilely confronted, my ass would sure as hell fight with whatever I have on me or can get my hands on. So would my children.

The police, for whatever reason, did not do their job. As a matter of fact, they made this situation all the worse. Doing a drug test on Trayvon and not Zimmerman, not alerting Trayvon’s family of his death, not arresting Zimmerman for murder and not investigating this case fully. Refusing to look at the evidence piling up until the FBI and Justice Department stepped in and took over. The police chief needs to be removed permanently, the cops working the case need punished in some manner and Zimmerman needs to be arrested and tried.

[Zakharra]

 Those are very good points, Iniquitous Opheliac. The police department of the city, Sanford(?), screwed up big time in this by not following procedure.

[OldSchoolGamer]

I think we're very near a tipping point here where the next time something like this happens--possibly this time--the black community is just going to rise up and sort things themselves.

Is it an optimal solution?  No.  But I think we're rather close to that Rubicon being crossed.

[Oniya]

My point was that, regrettable as it may be for color and ethnicity to figure into threat perception, it is always bad policy for government to enact laws which permit people, outside of their homes, to respond to those perceptions with deadly force in any but the unavoidable last resort.   

Here, we are in full agreement, as well as with the currently known facts in the case.  Last night, I was watching the coverage on HLN (mostly Vinnie and Dr. Drew) and they played the neighbor's 911 call where we can hear the person screaming for help.  If that's an adult male, so am I. 

[Braioch]

Now hold on, you guys are completely jumping the gun and expecting that this is in fact racially motivated. Even if someone has shown racist tendencies or comments does not mean that the next chance they get they're going to go out and shoot a person of a different race.

Personally this sounds like a man who was waiting for an excuse to play the 'hero' and he went too far too fast. Seen some kid in a hoodie 'stalking' about and decided to be the big man and get his claim to fame. Obviously this was a kid who didn't have much on him other than some skittles and a can of iced tea. Opheliac said it best, I myself too would have tried to get away from someone whom I thought was trying to follow me and if they persisted and I didn't have the option of getting somewhere safer fast enough, I'd confront that individual as well.

As for it being that Trayvon is black?

Maybe, I think perhaps it was closer to a chance of profiling, profiling a young individual wearing a hoodie. That honestly could have happened to any poor kid, one with a visible tattoo and a couple piercings and funky mohawk peeking out of his hoodie, (that'd be me, someone thought I was causing trouble and tried to boot me out forcibly from their little neighborhood that I was visiting a friend at) some hispanic or white guy in a hoodie. Anyone can be seen as 'suspicious' in the right light.

[Sabre]

The undisputed facts known at the time of the incident, as I understand them, were these: (1) Martin was dead from a gunshot wound; (2) Zimmerman admitted shooting martin; (3) Zimmerman, a self-appointed Neighborhood Watch captain, stalked Martin before the shooting; (4) Zimmerman was instructed by the 911 dispatcher to stop following Martin; (5) Zimmerman was armed (perhaps in violation of Neighborhood Watch rules), and Martin was not; (6) Martin attempted to avoid Zimmerman, and perhaps even ran, from him; and (7) the only evidence Zimmerman acted in self defense was his own self-serving account.

1, 2, and 3 are true.  4 is not, as he was neither instructed nor would the dispatcher have any legal authority to issue such a command to someone in the state of Florida.  5 puts Zimmerman at risk of being discharged from his duties in the Neighborhood Watch (if he was ever a member and not just self-appointed).  6 is only true at the moment of the phone call until it ends.  From that moment until the arrival of the police, everything not corroborated by official testimony and evidence is filling in the blanks ourselves.  7 is untrue, as Zimmerman had obvious wounds sustained from a beating and testimony from eyewitnesses (and the recorded fight) puts Zimmerman on his back with Martin over him beating him.  Had there been sufficient evidence that did not corroborate Zimmerman's self-defense claim, he would not have been let go without an arrest made.  Under these circumstances, by Florida law, the police did not have sufficient cause to take Zimmerman into custody.  Nor would there be a point - did they have a case for murder under Florida law?  Is Zimmerman a flight risk?  They can't just hold the man indefinitely while they build a case.

Under these circumstances, the failure of the police to find they had sufficient cause to take Zimmerman into custody and hold him for arraignment on homicide charges can only shock the conscience.

The law is there to prevent mob rule.  For the past few weeks everyone and their friends has been deemed fit by media outlets to play police commissioner and jury - how dare they not arrest him, it's indefensible, it shocks the conscience.  That's fine, I understand.  When media wants to elicit your self-identification, it's always about things you hate - police, Southerners, 'white' Hispanics, gun owners, racist bigots.  It's a hard thing then to remain where we all should be in these matters until the trial verdict is announced.  The police screwed up and did not follow procedure.  How did we know that?  Because we're all Florida policemen and lawyers here.

Rather, censure has been leveled at them because their conclusion that they lacked probable cause to arrest Zimmerman -- a standard well below that required for conviction -- was so faulty as to call into very serious question whether it was the product of indifference or even out and out bias.

A mass conclusion only reached because of our opinions of Zimmerman, his supposed guilt, based on second and third hand unofficial accounts.  How do you know it was faulty, and how do you know it was below this 'standard required for conviction'?

[Oniya]

From Zimmerman's 911 call:

Z: Shit, he's running.
D: He's running?  Which way is he running?
Z: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
D: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Z: The back entrance. [possible swearing]
D: Are you following him?
Z: Yes.
D: OK, we don't need you to do that.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html

[Sabre]

Which is not an order, nor anything binding on Zimmerman in states like Florida.

[Oniya]

In the bit you quoted, vtboy said 'instructed', not 'ordered'.  If I call 911 because my roommate has collapsed, and the 911 operator tells me how to do CPR, it is likewise instruction.  I am not legally bound to follow it, but it goes to state of mind if I choose not to, especially if death results.

[Sabre]

A fine distinction, but still irrelevant to why Zimmerman should be arrested.  He's a paranoid racist with self-absorbed fantasies about citizen responsibilities and justice, but one that should still be afforded the benefit of doubt until proven - by investigation by the proper authorities like the local police and FBI - to have committed assault and murder instead of manslaughter in self-defense.  Same for the authorities until gross negligence can be shown in the FBI investigation.

[vtboy]

Which is not an order, nor anything binding on Zimmerman in states like Florida.

The word I used was "instructed", not ordered. Substitute "advised" if you are semantically troubled by my initial choice.

How do I know probable cause is a lower standard than that required for conviction (i.e., proof beyond reasonable doubt)? Law school plus over 20 years of legal practice which, in addition to criminal defense, has included false arrest and federal civil rights litigation in which questions surrounding probable cause have been front and center. I am conversant in both standards of proof. And what is the source of your legal erudition?

The carrying of a gun in violation of Neighborhood Watch has evidentiary significance because, coupled with other evidence, it could permit a jury to infer Zimmerman was there, not as a watchman, but as a hunter. The implications for a finding as to the mental state with which he acted are obvious.

As to Zimmerman's injuries, they are equivocal evidence on Zimmerman's self-defense defense as they may have resulted from Martin's attempts to defend an attack by Zimmerman. If anything, this would appear to be the most likely inference, as there can be little doubt as to who was the pursuer and who the pursued.

Perhaps this discussion would advance further if you refrained from implying that those on the other side of the question some sort of mob stirred to mindless lawlessness by a rapacious and irresponsible press. My point throughout has been this is a case for the courts.

[Beguile's Mistress]

"Dateline Sunday" is going to be devoted to this story and is supposed to have new information that hasn't been heart.  Trayvon's father is going to be one of the interviewees.

Also, Zimmerman has been expelled from Seminole State College because of the potential disruption his attendance will cause the school and students.  He's been a part-time student for several years.

[Iniquitous]

Zimmerman has also been asked to move from the gated community as well.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Who will watch the watchers?

[Sabre]

I am conversant in both standards of proof. And what is the source of your legal erudition?

That we are both equally distant in authority and all objective information.  Your casework has not been as distantly observed I should hope.  Zimmerman's case is of course a matter for the courts.  But so is the Sanford Police Department's conduct and procedure a case for investigators.  But this:

Horrific enough in their own right, the lynchings which were trademarks of the Jim Crow south were made all the more appalling by the complicity, active or tacit, of state and local police, prosecutors, and courts. I fail to see how the response of both police and prosecutor to Trayvon Martin's likely lynching may be viewed as different in kind or wickedness. 

The discussion progresses further if we instead are agreed this is a matter of a 'quaint Southern tradition'?  Would that I have implied you were mindless as much as you insinuate, but I am no fan of hypocrisy.  You and I both are a part of the mob now. 

[Callie Del Noire]

Let's look at it like this.

Trayvon Martin: He was unarmed.
-Even in Zimmerman's phonecall he was running away. Trying to AVOID Zimmerman
-No past history of trouble, though it might not have been highlighted.

George Zimmerman: He was armed.
-Had repeated calls to the 9/11 operators and police over previous encounters with 'trespassers'.
-Carried a side arm despite it being against neighborhood watch rules.
-Was told to disengage by the 9/11 operators.. didn't

Things that I want to hear about but have: How close were the fatal wounds. Did Trayvon have any fight wounds? Were they defensive? Who was doing the yelling? (I have listened to the phone recording..to me that isn't George Zimmerman).

Look at the intent of the two people. We got Martin, who was clearly trying to get away from Zimmerman. Zimmerman was intent on running down the 'perp', carried a gun and apparently done this sort of behavior in the past if his past calls to the authorities are any indication.

To me, it's relatively clear that Zimmerman was looking for an excuse. Having been in that sort of situation myself when my folks moved to the new estate they and my older brother live in now, I was out jogging and got stopped by the locals. I was jogging in my hoodie and sweats (it was foggy, early, and I was trying to do 8 miles a day to counter the holiday diet I had) and I was on the end of my brother's street. Till I mentioned my brother, I was looking at two rentacops hassling me. (their response was 'oh you're B.G.'s brother? Sorry..) It wasn't much of a hassle, I was an older (38) man than poor Trayvon and knew how to handle encounters and it was in daylight.

There are a lot of intangibles that we aren't seeing in the news that could spin things but looking at what we know of the character of the people involved.. I'd say that there was enough to merit closer scrutiny by the cops. A lot.

[Sabre]

I've been in that same situation myself, even with my hood down since it was a warmer day.

I'd say that there was enough to merit closer scrutiny by the cops. A lot.

Closer scrutiny like what?

[Callie Del Noire]

I've been in that same situation myself, even with my hood down since it was a warmer day.

Closer scrutiny like what?

Like the man brought a gun when he knew it wasn't part of the regulations. The pattern of confrontation has been established quite easily by the media, I'd say the cops would have easier time finding the same information. I have to wonder if there was a 'perfunctory' measure of the investigation the local cops did was .. brief and looks like it was done among friends. A lot of that atmosphere would have defused with a press conference or two by the cops or a longer investigation and taking Zimmerman into custody initially.

Defusing the APPEARANCE of favoritism and looking more closely into the incident would have done a lot to keeping the incident out of the national eye. The resignation of the local head of the Sanford police said something to that effect.

Even one of the authors of the 'Stand your ground' law, Durell Peaden, said that Zimmerman should be prosecuted under the law under his understanding of how the incident went. 

[Sabre]

Such rituals of appeasement are so irreverent, it's kind of sad.  Would the same lawmakers have come out and said this when the story wasn't a media frenzy?  They seem keen on defending their law more than anything else.  I agree that all of the above would have diffused the situation, but cannot say it is Jim Crow returned nor just kindling for sensationalism that would have burned anyway.

The pair [Peaden and Baxley] noted, hwoever, that they didn't know all the facts of the case and their opinions could change if new details were uncovered.

That's called covering your bases and waiting for the storm to pass.

[Callie Del Noire]

Such rituals of appeasement are so irreverent, it's kind of sad.  Would the same lawmakers have come out and said this when the story wasn't a media frenzy?  They seem keen on defending their law more than anything else.  I agree that all of the above would have diffused the situation, but cannot say it is Jim Crow returned nor just kindling for sensationalism that would have burned anyway.

That's called covering your bases and waiting for the storm to pass.

Thing is.. Zimmerman isn't the saint the cops claimed him to be. He has arrested (though the charges were dropped later) for interferring with a cop arresting a friend of his. He's been accused of domestic violence by an ex-fiancee, though both were told to avoid each other for a year rather than having formal charges being put forth on either. He's made 40+ calls to the police since 2011 as a member of the neighborhood watch and has been described as 'strict' by residents of the community. He hasn't quite attained a record.

Whereas the only thing that Trayvan has even been in trouble for was a 10 days suspension, and I got one of those for being the loser in a fight with another kid. He started it.. I got suspended for 2 weeks. (The instigator got 10 days as well).

Not saying that Martin was a saint or that Zimmerman was certainly a gunthug running around looking for trouble, just that the initial investigation was glossed over by the authoriites because he was studying to be a cop. More scrutiny could have avoided this altogether tragic event.

Granted if Zimmerman hadn't had the gun with him, Trayvon would still be alive too.

And I find it very telling that one of the authors of the 'Standing your ground' law says that from what he's seen of the incident that there was ample grounds for Zimmerman to be prosecuted.

[Sabre]

It's telling in that he's playing both sides as much as he is able as any politician under fire will.  The law, however, has allowed for many situations just like this one to go without trials or arrests.  It's not the first, and unfortunately Martin will likely not be the last so long as the law remains on the books.  Zimmerman is hardly a saint (or even a decent person), but balancing hearts on an Anubis scale and saying the police have tipped theirs over indifference to Martin or support for Zimmerman is a terrible thing as well.  Though our ages are very different, you and I both know it wasn't Jim Crow that Martin died from.  It was from the way people in the South are now living, from isolated communities with suspicious neighbors that live their lives driving from one strip mall to the other.

[Callie Del Noire]

It's telling in that he's playing both sides as much as he is able as any politician under fire will.  The law, however, has allowed for many situations just like this one to go without trials or arrests.  It's not the first, and unfortunately Martin will likely not be the last so long as the law remains on the books.  Zimmerman is hardly a saint (or even a decent person), but balancing hearts on an Anubis scale and saying the police have tipped theirs over indifference to Martin or support for Zimmerman is a terrible thing as well.  Though our ages are very different, you and I both know it wasn't Jim Crow that Martin died from.  It was from the way people in the South are now living, from isolated communities with suspicious neighbors that live their lives driving from one strip mall to the other.

Agreed.. gated communities are a boon and a bane. It's the bunker defense outlook and things like 'Neighborhood associations' that have made me vow to not live in an area with one. I don't like the fact that at least one person down here in Jax has had such a group try and take his home away from him for a flag pole in his front yard. I see too many cases of abuse behind the laws and rules they set up

My problem is there is an air of 'Zimmerman said' and nothing else is coming up. A couple neighbors had stated the cops corrected them when their stories didn't match Zimmerman's and one one said they didn't take her statement because it directly counterdicted his story. (He was standing over Martin who was yelling for help).

There are enough inconsistencies in the reporting and the approach to the incident to mandate an investigation. And I don't think the law protects Zimmerman given he PURSUED the boy.

[Trieste]

Just a quick note to keep it civil and on topic. There is no need for personal barbs to be thrown around.

[elone]

This from Wikipedia

When the police arrived, they reported finding Martin face-down and unresponsive, with a gunshot wound in the chest. The police report states that they attempted CPR, paramedics arrived and continued CPR, finally declaring Trayvon Martin dead at 7:30 p.m. Statements by the police say Zimmerman had grass on his back and his back was wet. Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose and the back of the head; subsequently his lawyer stated that Zimmerman's nose was broken and that wound of the back of his head normally required stitches.[45][46] Zimmerman claimed self-defense, telling police he had stepped out of his truck to check the name of the street he was on, when Martin attacked him from behind as he walked back to his truck. He said he fired the semiautomatic handgun because he feared for his life.[47] Martin was unarmed, and was carrying a bag of Skittles candy and a can of Arizona brand iced tea.[47][48]
A witness to the physical altercation just prior to the shooting stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and beating him up, while the older man yelled for help.[49] Another witness, Mary Cutcher, has said in a TV interview that "there was no punching, no hitting going on at the time, no wrestling",[50] but police say that she gave an official account to them that agreed with Zimmerman's story.[51][52] Cutcher and her roommate told CNN journalist Anderson Cooper that their own account of the incident to the police did not agree with Zimmerman's, and that they had demanded that the police retract that incorrect statement. They also said, about the police's attitude at the scene, that "they were siding with him [Zimmerman] from the start" and that they heard the pair in their backyard and a "very young voice" whining, with no sounds of a fight. They heard a gunshot; the crying stopped immediately, and they saw Zimmerman on his knees pinning Martin down on the ground.[53] On March 24th, 2012, FOX 35 in Orlando reported that a man named John told police that Martin attacked Zimmerman on the night of the shooting.[54]

Trayvon Martin

Height   6 ft 3 in (1.91 m)[1]
Weight   140 lb (64 kg)[1]


George Zimmerman

Height   5 ft 9 in (1.75 m)[6][7]
Weight   250 lb (110 kg)[6]

It seems a new witness has come forward that says Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman punching him. The statements by Cutcher are different now than they were when given to the police. Her saying she heard whining seems contradicted by the 911 calls by neighbors where you can clearly hear someone screaming in the background.

Perhaps when all is investigated we will get to the truth of the matter. One thing is for certain, this was a tragedy that could have been avoided had Zimmerman been less zealous in his self directed policing.

[Callie Del Noire]

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/witness-sanford-police-blew-us-teen-slaying/nLSqk/

Definitely more on the witnesse statements than we've heard by the police statement.

[elone]

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/031612-911-calls-released-in-Sanford-shooting

Here is a link to all the 911 calls that came in about the shooting. I assume one of them is Cutcher's. Figure out which one. All of them that heard something seem to describe fighting, calls for help, immediately followed by a single gunshot. In one you hear the shot. This is not what Cutcher said in her interview, she says the fight was further away, then they moved near her house, she heard whimpering, then a shot. All the other 911 calls describe it differently, as does the audio where you can hear the shot. I am not convinced by her version of events.

Interesting that one guy said he saw the fight but not the shot as he came in to get his dog and was going back out to help (I think). The 911 person did not ask him for many details. I am sure we will hear this description in the investigation.

I was wondering if they found the bullet. Did it pass through Martin? If so, and it might seem likely at such close range, was it in the ground or not found. If in the ground it would seem Zimmerman would have been on top or above Martin. If not recovered, the other way round.

Also, what happened to the clothes that both were wearing at the time? Were they taken in evidence? Also, what happened to Zimmerman after the shooting? Did the police take him in for questioning, was he offered medical help for his alleged broken nose and cuts to his head? Seems this investigation was either botched or the police just assumed it was self defense and let it go at that.

It is hard not to be swayed by emotion in this case, I feel as many others do that it was a confrontation that should never have happened, and quite possibly racially motivated. If they don't get Zimmerman for manslaughter, (I doubt murder can be proven), then they will get him for some type of hate crime.

Again, hopefully a full investigation will get some answers and a just end to the case.

[Belle33]

Agreed.. gated communities are a boon and a bane. It's the bunker defense outlook and things like 'Neighborhood associations' that have made me vow to not live in an area with one. I don't like the fact that at least one person down her can act to against homeowners that don't follow the HOA rules.  I agree - it's troublesome.  I have to get approval on the color before painting me in Jax has had such a group try and take his home away from him for a flag pole in his front yard. I see too many cases of abuse behind the laws and rules they set up

I suspect what you're reacting to here are Home Owner Associations and their sometimes intricate rules that permeate communities in North Florida.  Whether or not the community is gated doesn't matter - communitiesy house.  It's absurd, but I don't think this has anything to do with a culture that lead to Trayvon's shooting.

I'm interested in understanding whether the 'Stand Your Ground' law supports Trayvon here.  It seems to me that he's the person who was attacked.  It seems to me that people rarely think of self defense in terms of black men defending themselves from white people. 

I wonder if Zimmerman was identifiable as a person in authority.  Did he wear a uniform?  A badge?  Was he in a marked car?  Did he identify himself in some way?  Absent all this, and looking at this from Trayvon's perspective, I can't see why he wouldn't act to try to defend himself if Zimmerman approached.  Especially if he could see that Zimmerman was armed.   

I would run away from an armed guy lurking around my neighborhood at night, too.  I am Trayvon.

[Oniya]

As I understand it, Neighborhood Watch organizations in general do not get badges or uniforms.  I haven't heard that Zimmerman called out anything like 'Neighborhood Watch!' when he asked Trayvon what he was doing. 

[The Irishman]

I fear I'm going to be the minority in this argument.  I'll do my best to be as inoffensive and as hilarious as I possibly can be, without appearing to be too callous:



I am not ready to 100% call for Zimmerman's head or to make the battle cry that he was acting completely in self-defense.  I do not have all the evidence, but I would like to think I have enough to make a reasonable assumption.  Which is precisely what the rest of you have done, I imagine.


If I were a betting man, I would wager on Zimmerman being innocent.  I would also wager on him not being a racist.  I will try to clarify both of my claims as best as I can.  I will start with the charge that Zimmerman is racist against blacks:


This started out when people "thought" he said a derogatory term with the 911 dispatcher.  However, the hypothetical jury is out on that assumption.  I do not believe he said anything of the sort.  I do believe he was highly suspicious of the way that Trayvon was dressed and how he was acting (cutting through people's yards), which I cannot take offense to.  If we rule out that Zimmerman did not use a racial slur, we only have the evidence that he is Hispanic and the boy is black -- which doesn't hold up much, unless your last name is Jackson or Sharpton.


About the hoodie -- if you look like a thief and are cutting across people's lawns at night, you should not be surprised when someone asks what you're doing.  His skin color had nothing to do with it.  His attire during the time of night and the circumstances is what brought this event to a head.  I believe Dave Chappelle has a stand-up skit about assumptions with clothing. 


Now, we can move on to why I would wager that Zimmerman is innocent, and why I don't believe "Stand Your Ground" applies in this situation.  He was requested not to pursue Trayvon by a 911 dispatcher -- which is not a legal request.  What happens next is fuzzy.  However, what is almost a sure-fact is that at some point in time Trayvon managed to get on top of Zimmerman and began to rearrange his face.  There were cries for help -- and the wounds inflicted on Zimmerman would likely back his story that he was calling for help.  After that, there was a gunshot. 


In most states, there is a duty to retreat if possible.  However, Zimmerman had no route of escape.  He was on his back and was being brutally assaulted by a "boy" who was 6'3".  If I were a lawyer, I would argue that Trayvon used inappropriate force in continuing to attack Zimmerman after he was on the ground, even if Zimmerman had hypothetically struck first -- which there is no evidence found on Trayvon to back that claim.  It was at this time I believe the weapon was discharged, killing Trayvon.


Should he have pursued Trayvon?  No, that was stupid of him -- he should have allowed the police to handle it.  Is that illegal?  No.  As a civilian, he does have reasonable justification to protect his neighbor's property/life if he thought Trayvon was committing some crime.  Was he wrong in discharging his firearm?  No.  It was the middle of the night and he was being assaulted by a younger and fitter man than himself.  Should he have been carrying a weapon as a Neighborhood Watchman?  That is irrelevant -- he was a Florida CCDW permit holder.  He had the legal right to do so, regardless of his volunteer position.  Speaking in his defense, if I were put in the same responsibility, I would carry my own personal firearm just the same as Zimmerman did. 


I could also be dead (not literally) wrong.  Who knows?  I am irked that our President does not have anything better to do than stick his nose in to local affairs, but that is another time and place.  I do have to ask -- I wonder if the Justice Department will allocate just as many resources to arresting members of the New Black Panther Party that put a $10,000 bounty out for Zimmerman's head?

[Iniquitous]

I ask this in all seriousness....

Are you serious?

I will state here and now if someone unknown is following me - doesn't even matter what time of day or night - and doesn't announce what the hell they are following me for and doesn't let me get to safety, I am going to do my damned best to rearrange his face as well as try to put his gonads up in place of his eyeballs!

Zimmerman STALKED Trayvon plain and simple.

He wanted to be Barney Fife and had a complex thinking he was the law when he wasn't/isn't and Trayvon had every right to defend HIMSELF from someone unknown stalking him and not announcing himself.

And for that matter, I've taught my kids to do the same thing. If they are being threatened, feel threatened, try to get somewhere safe. If they cannot, fight dirty. Kick, bite, throw punches, use whatever they can get their hands on to defend themselves.

[The Irishman]

I ask this in all seriousness....

Are you serious?

I will state here and now if someone unknown is following me - doesn't even matter what time of day or night - and doesn't announce what the hell they are following me for and doesn't let me get to safety, I am going to do my damned best to rearrange his face as well as try to put his gonads up in place of his eyeballs!

Zimmerman STALKED Trayvon plain and simple.

He wanted to be Barney Fife and had a complex thinking he was the law when he wasn't/isn't and Trayvon had every right to defend HIMSELF from someone unknown stalking him and not announcing himself.

And for that matter, I've taught my kids to do the same thing. If they are being threatened, feel threatened, try to get somewhere safe. If they cannot, fight dirty. Kick, bite, throw punches, use whatever they can get their hands on to defend themselves.

I think I'm being serious, but I can't quite remember what it was I was -- oh, that's right!


We don't necessarily know what happened in the time between Zimmerman called the police and when Trayvon was on top of him.  Zimmerman states that he returned to his SUV and Trayvon assaulted him from behind.  If the crime scene occurred near to his SUV, I cannot currently find any proof that would deny this side of the story.  We do not know if Zimmerman did alert Trayvon to his status of being Neighborhood Watch (Which, again, is not a legal necessity.) or even spoke to him. 


However, I would state with some reassurance that taking a man to the ground and pummeling him is not an appropriate level of force used if Zimmerman was only following him.  If there was no force applied towards Trayvon (and there is not), then I do not see how Trayvon's actions were justified.  I also do not believe that what Zimmerman did was stalking per Florida law, which can be found in Section 784.048.  His actions had a purpose (protecting property).  However, I am not a lawyer and would ultimately think that such reasoning would be best explained by one.


Unfortunately, Opheliac, you have to be responsible in the level of force you use.  Simply being followed does not give you the legal authority to physically assault somebody.

[Iniquitous]

Actually, they have the girlfriend's statement that Travyon ASKED Zimmerman what he wanted (or something to that effect) and Zimmerman verbally confronted Trayvon (cannot remember the exact wording but it was not announcing that he was neighborhood watch and was aggressive).

What we do know is Zimmerman has said that he got out of his SUV to check what road he was on. Seriously? He's lived there for years (something like since 2002 or 2004, cant remember the exact number of years now) and he had to get OUT of his SUV to actually check a street sign? And HE is the self appointed captain of the neighborhood watch?

We also know that Trayvon was shot and killed away from the SUV. Like between two townhomes - which implies that Zimmerman CHASED Trayvon.

There are also witnesses in the neighborhood coming forward to say the cops corrected THEM on their statements when they said something that did NOT fit Zimmerman's story.

I can keep going here. This is not an innocent man that was defending himself.

This is a case of a self important bumbling fool who wanted to be the 'hero' and went too far.

[elone]

Actually, they have the girlfriend's statement that Travyon ASKED Zimmerman what he wanted (or something to that effect) and Zimmerman verbally confronted Trayvon (cannot remember the exact wording but it was not announcing that he was neighborhood watch and was aggressive).

What we do know is Zimmerman has said that he got out of his SUV to check what road he was on. Seriously? He's lived there for years (something like since 2002 or 2004, cant remember the exact number of years now) and he had to get OUT of his SUV to actually check a street sign? And HE is the self appointed captain of the neighborhood watch?

We also know that Trayvon was shot and killed away from the SUV. Like between two townhomes - which implies that Zimmerman CHASED Trayvon.

There are also witnesses in the neighborhood coming forward to say the cops corrected THEM on their statements when they said something that did NOT fit Zimmerman's story.

I can keep going here. This is not an innocent man that was defending himself.

This is a case of a self important bumbling fool who wanted to be the 'hero' and went too far.

According to the girlfriend's version of the call, Trayvon said "What are you following me for?" Zimmerman responded "What are you doing here?" Then the phone or earpiece went dead, she "assumed" Trayvon had been pushed.

Not sure where the idea comes from that Zimmerman was checking a street sign. Is there some report of that? It is not in the official police report. http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin%20Lakes%20Shooting%20Initial%20Report.pdf]

We do not know that Zimmerman chased Trayvon, although it seems he was trying to follow him. The call from Zimmerman to police said that Trayvon ran and he lost track of him. Zimmerman says that on the way back to the SUV he was jumped. That does not mean he was next to the SUV, but was returning after losing sight of Trayvon to meet the police who were on the way.

Don't know about witnesses being coerced, but if you listen to the 911 tapes you will see that the statements made by Cutcher on the news are totally contradicted by the 911 tapes. Also she actually saw nothing as per her 911 call that was released. Listen to it, she had no real information and got off the phone rather quickly. She certainly had a lot to say to the media afterwards.

Fact is, we don't really know what occurred, it is probably best to let the facts come out, as they will surely investigate this all thoroughly and present it to the grand jury.

[The Irishman]

I concur with the gentleman/cat above.

[Serephino]

This is really screwed up.  Teenagers have been taught to be wary of strangers because there are a lot of pervs out there, and it isn't just girls that have to worry about it.  If some older guy was following me you better believe it's going to freak me out a little.  If I run and said guy starts chasing me, I'd use every dirty trick I know. 

[Callie Del Noire]

I think that two things will muddy the waters in this situations. One, the cops in Sanford played softball with their investigation. Two, with the media has made it IMPOSSIBLE to get things straightened out one way or the other.

[elone]

I think that two things will muddy the waters in this situations. One, the cops in Sanford played softball with their investigation. Two, with the media has made it IMPOSSIBLE to get things straightened out one way or the other.

You are right on both counts, I think the cops just thought it would go away and no one would care like so many other shootings in this country. They just said, yeah self defense, let's move on.

The media can always be counted on to jump all over a story and flog it to death, bringing forth a lot of misinformation and causing people to come forward for their 15 minutes of fame who really have nothing substantial to add. About the only good thing they have done is get it enough attention so that there will be a new investigation. Just let some other sensational thing hit the news and that will be the last we hear of this story.

[Callie Del Noire]

You are right on both counts, I think the cops just thought it would go away and no one would care like so many other shootings in this country. They just said, yeah self defense, let's move on.

The media can always be counted on to jump all over a story and flog it to death, bringing forth a lot of misinformation and causing people to come forward for their 15 minutes of fame who really have nothing substantial to add. About the only good thing they have done is get it enough attention so that there will be a new investigation. Just let some other sensational thing hit the news and that will be the last we hear of this story.

Add in things like the New Black Panthers putting out a bounty for Zimmerman and it gets surreal.

[Roleplay Frog]

Add in things like the New Black Panthers putting out a bounty for Zimmerman and it gets surreal.

Isn't putting a bounty on someones head not a crime like instigation to murder or somethin?

[elone]

The New Black Panther Party has been described as virulently racist, advcating for death to Jews, whites, and others. They have no relation to the Black Panther party of the 60s and 70s. What they have offered is a reward of $10,000 for a citizens arrest of Zimmerman. The police are worried this will move into causing a vigilante action.

New news. Earlier reporting said that Trayvon was suspended for being tardy during the incident. Not so, he was suspended for possession of a baggie that may have contained pot, along with a pipe. He had previously been suspended for tardiness and someone said vandalism. Also he was investigated by the police for possession of some jewelry and possible possession of burglary tools. The latter two could not be proven to be his so no action was taken.

Story here:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/revealed-trayvon-martins-suspension-record-george-zimmermans-statement-to-police/

[Roleplay Frog]

aaah, that part was confusing, even hearing from it from different sources, one has to admit that the term bounty is not really innocent.

[Rhapsody]

As I stated in another forum (which I WISH had the civility of this one), if the reports of Martin attacking Zimmerman are correct, should the Stand Your Ground law not apply to Martin as well? I mean, if shooting someone is an appropriate response for getting punched in the face, shouldn't punching someone in the face be an appropriate response for getting stalked?

[Callie Del Noire]

As I stated in another forum (which I WISH had the civility of this one), if the reports of Martin attacking Zimmerman are correct, should the Stand Your Ground law not apply to Martin as well? I mean, if shooting someone is an appropriate response for getting punched in the face, shouldn't punching someone in the face be an appropriate response for getting stalked?

You know.. I hadn't considered that. I'll have to look up the law again.

[Oniya]

As I stated in another forum (which I WISH had the civility of this one), if the reports of Martin attacking Zimmerman are correct, should the Stand Your Ground law not apply to Martin as well? I mean, if shooting someone is an appropriate response for getting punched in the face, shouldn't punching someone in the face be an appropriate response for getting stalked?

If I hadn't slept in, I would actually have called in to the guys on In Session for that.  *makes note not to nap tomorrow*

[vtboy]

Two forensic voice identification experts have now opined that the background voice crying for help on one of the 911 recordings is not Zimmerman's.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/01/10963191-trayvon-martin-case-911-call-screams-not-george-zimmermans-2-experts-say?gt1=43001

Hopefully, there are some exemplars of Martin's voice which might furnish a basis for an expert opinion as to whether or not the pleas for help were his. One can only wonder whether the police bothered to perform any sort of analysis on the recorded voice.

Does anyone know what Zimmerman's or the official explanation is for the apparent absence of Martin's blood from Zimmerman's clothing and person after the shooting? I'm no expert on this, but it seems to me that if Zimmerman's account of the incident (i.e., that he shot Martin at close range in a scuffle on the ground in which Martin was on top of him) is accurate, there should at least have been some blood on him? Or, perhaps the police simply concluded that it was not important to test Zimmerman's self-defense story against the available physical evidence. 

[Trieste]

The physics of blood can be complex and a little boggling. The shape of the drop, the length of the 'tail' (if a drop is found on a hard surface) and whatnot are all important factors. The absence of blood is just as much a part of ballistics as the presence of blood, so it can be assured that the lack of blood on Zimmerman's clothes tells the experts something. What that something is, I have no idea, as my physics acumen is hardly good enough to tell you the direction a frickin' bouncy ball will go.

*hates physics SO HARD*

[AndyZ]

Does anyone know what Zimmerman's or the official explanation is for the apparent absence of Martin's blood from Zimmerman's clothing and person after the shooting? I'm no expert on this, but it seems to me that if Zimmerman's account of the incident (i.e., that he shot Martin at close range in a scuffle on the ground in which Martin was on top of him) is accurate, there should at least have been some blood on him? Or, perhaps the police simply concluded that it was not important to test Zimmerman's self-defense story against the available physical evidence.

Fair warning that I'm not fully reading this thread, just felt like popping on for a quick peek to the final post, so PM me if you need a response.

However, from my understanding of when you shoot someone, most of the blood doesn't spray out of them in your direction, but in the opposite direction.

JFK's Head Movement

Here's a thing that Penn and Teller did a while back on the JFK stuff.  It shows how that, contrary to movies, shooting someone in the head actually makes them stumble towards you and not away.

No idea where Trayvon was shot, probably wasn't the head, but the physics might work out in a similar way to send everything flying out the back.

You were pretty nice in my other thread so I wanted to try to help out some with your question here; I hope that explains a possible reason.

[Callie Del Noire]

It tells us this much.. depending on how close Zimmerman SAID he was that he was lying. Thing is.. if Trayvon was close enough to bloody his nose.. was there any of Zimmerman's blood on Trayvon's clothing? Definitely there is something off with his story.. but how much of that is distortion from the telling of himself what happened and he MIGHT be concealing.

[Cythieus]

As a Texan, the stand your ground clause isn't meant to be used for you to go looking for trouble. The law is meant to be used if you're jumped on while you're otherwise doing nothing and in fear for your life. This doesn't mean you can shoot police because while your life could be threatened by them, it usually is because you were already in the wrong. At the same time, if you go somewhere and people look suspicious the last thing you should do is get out of your car and follow them, that's not fear for your life. I live near a city where I see strange shit go down all of the time, I've seen people fighting and pulling weapons and stuff like that. What do I do? Call the police. I never hesitate to call the police and they never have to tell me to maintain my distance. The only time you can interject like Zimmerman did is if someone is attacking someone else and you see it, and even then you have to use appropriate force.

Stalking and harassment are against the law too. And all of this stuff floating around on Facebook and the like about how wearing a hood makes you look like a criminal is irrelevant. I heard someone in a coffee shop speaking when I was getting up to leave and they said "If you look like a criminal than you probably are one". Sorry, but being black and in a hood aren't justification to be shot. Hell, being a criminal isn't really one either. Shooting is for serious crime, home invasions, things when you and others around you are in danger.

In closing, I'd like to pose the question: Does anyone really think that the streets are safer without this kid? What about with this lunatic running around armed and on the neighborhood watch? Do we want him out there?

[elone]

In closing, I'd like to pose the question: Does anyone really think that the streets are safer without this kid? What about with this lunatic running around armed and on the neighborhood watch? Do we want him out there?

Just for arguments sake why is Trayvon this kid, and why is Zimmerman a lunatic? By his friends account, Zimmerman was not racist and was a concerned citizen. No he should not have confronted Trayvon, but also, Trayvon should not have jumped him. I of course am assuming unknown certainties here.

Also, if you carry a firearm, one of the worst fears is that someone will take it away from you. (a good reason not to carry) If, as witnesses have said, Zimmerman was getting the crap beat out of him what should he have done? What should someone do under that circumstance? Regardless of what occurred prior to the scuffle, what were Zimmerman's options if he genuinely feared for his life or the loss of his firearm to an assailant?

I had occasion to carry concealed in the military, I hated it and avoided it unless absolutely necessary, just could not get used to it.

[Oniya]

A question:

If you had your head beat against the sidewalk for even a minute, how much medical assistance/care would you require?  Not even talking about procedures - how much time would you expect the medical professionals to devote to making sure that you didn't have a concussion, patching up any lacerations, and ensuring you didn't need transport to the nearest E.R.?

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/04/02/nr-trayvon-martin-timeline.cnn

[Callie Del Noire]

A question:

If you had your head beat against the sidewalk for even a minute, how much medical assistance/care would you require?  Not even talking about procedures - how much time would you expect the medical professionals to devote to making sure that you didn't have a concussion, patching up any lacerations, and ensuring you didn't need transport to the nearest E.R.?

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/04/02/nr-trayvon-martin-timeline.cnn

Not sure myself, but there were what? Five/six officers, two emts on the scene? I figure it was a neat organized event and I'm sure that Zimmerman got less than the eight minutes. I'm sure that if some form of evidentiary photos could have been taken of the wounds a lot of questions would be answered. One way or another.

[elone]

A question:

If you had your head beat against the sidewalk for even a minute, how much medical assistance/care would you require?  Not even talking about procedures - how much time would you expect the medical professionals to devote to making sure that you didn't have a concussion, patching up any lacerations, and ensuring you didn't need transport to the nearest E.R.?

For a cut and bloody nose, not much time. Concussion? Don't know but not much if he was conscious and coherent.

One thing to note, we have not heard a peep from the EMT's on the scene. They should have filed a report of the call. Also, they have not been identified as far as I know. This will definitely come out in an investigation, or it certainly should.

[Callie Del Noire]

For a cut and bloody nose, not much time. Concussion? Don't know but not much if he was conscious and coherent.

One thing to note, we have not heard a peep from the EMT's on the scene. They should have filed a report of the call. Also, they have not been identified as far as I know. This will definitely come out in an investigation, or it certainly should.

You know.. I hadn't considered that. The EMTs would at the very least be able to say what sort of wounds he incurred.

[Cythieus]

Just for arguments sake why is Trayvon this kid, and why is Zimmerman a lunatic? By his friends account, Zimmerman was not racist and was a concerned citizen. No he should not have confronted Trayvon, but also, Trayvon should not have jumped him. I of course am assuming unknown certainties here.

Also, if you carry a firearm, one of the worst fears is that someone will take it away from you. (a good reason not to carry) If, as witnesses have said, Zimmerman was getting the crap beat out of him what should he have done? What should someone do under that circumstance? Regardless of what occurred prior to the scuffle, what were Zimmerman's options if he genuinely feared for his life or the loss of his firearm to an assailant?

I had occasion to carry concealed in the military, I hated it and avoided it unless absolutely necessary, just could not get used to it.

His option was simple: not to be in that situation.

The events and the outcome are more to do with Zimmerman's actions than that of Martin. The same could be said of Martin, he could be called out as someone who feared for his safety, its been said that he was heard on the phone telling another party that he thought he was being followed. What would your reaction be to being followed? Could you say that you'd just like to let them continue to do it? Now you can say that Zimmerman was defending himself, but it was his own actions that put him into a place where he needed to. With things like neighborhood watches and security guards they are constantly telling you that you're not the police and your primary function is to observe and report.

The gun is a last resort, if you're carrying one, to assure your safety. But a gun can do well to enable someone to take more liberties than they should, I can't say for sure that's what happened. But it sounds like Zimmerman did something dangerous by following someone---would he still have done that if he had not been armed?

As for the insanity thing, that's honestly how I see the guy. As the kind of lunatic I don't want anywhere near a gun.

[elone]

The problem with this whole tragic episode is that there is not enough reliable information that has come out. Everyone is speculating on what happened. My guess it that someone, The FBI or state investigators have a whole lot more than the rest of us know about. I would think that they are keeping it close to the vest until either they charge Zimmerman or convene a grand jury to make that decision.

The same could be said of Martin, he could be called out as someone who feared for his safety, its been said that he was heard on the phone telling another party that he thought he was being followed. What would your reaction be to being followed? Could you say that you'd just like to let them continue to do it?

If I feared for my safety the last thing I would do is confront the person following me. His girlfriend said about the phone conversation that Trayvon asked Zimmerman why was he following him. This was an open area behind townhouses/homes, dark, with several avenues to leave and just go home. Trayvon did not take that route. I would have.

Also, we don't know that Zimmerman kept following him after the person told him "we don't need you to do that." For all we know at that point he turned and was walking back to his vehicle when Trayvon confronted him. This is what I mean when I say we just don't have all the information needed to make any kind of conclusion.

If this was a simple case of Zimmerman being obviously guilty or reckless, he would be in custody now. Apparently the authorities have just as many questions as the rest of us.

[Rhapsody]

The problem with this whole tragic episode is that there is not enough reliable information that has come out. Everyone is speculating on what happened. My guess it that someone, The FBI or state investigators have a whole lot more than the rest of us know about. I would think that they are keeping it close to the vest until either they charge Zimmerman or convene a grand jury to make that decision.

If I feared for my safety the last thing I would do is confront the person following me. His girlfriend said about the phone conversation that Trayvon asked Zimmerman why was he following him. This was an open area behind townhouses/homes, dark, with several avenues to leave and just go home. Trayvon did not take that route. I would have.

Key words here are 'I would have'. Not everyone reacts to stressors in the same way. I can pretty much guarantee that my husband would have reacted the way Martin has been said to react: confrontation. He sees a threat, and his hardwiring tells him to deal with it head-on.

[Oniya]

For a cut and bloody nose, not much time. Concussion? Don't know but not much if he was conscious and coherent.

One thing to note, we have not heard a peep from the EMT's on the scene. They should have filed a report of the call. Also, they have not been identified as far as I know. This will definitely come out in an investigation, or it certainly should.

I'm hoping it does.  As of right now, the claim of self defense is being supported by Zimmerman's statement that Trayvon jumped him, and beat his head against the sidewalk 'for a minute'.  Now, in my younger days, I fell quite a bit on sidewalks.  Never on my head, but it doesn't take a whole lot of force to get a scrape on concrete.  If your head is being struck against concrete repeatedly over time, and with enough force that you feel in danger of your life, I would suspect that the EMT's would have quite a mess to clean up, at the very least.

[gaggedLouise]

Here's a thing that Penn and Teller did a while back on the JFK stuff.  It shows how that, contrary to movies, shooting someone in the head actually makes them stumble towards you and not away.

I remember hearing this one from an experienced doctor of forensic medicine speaking of some other gun assassination (other than JFK, that is): "It's actually quite unsafe to shoot people in the head, when you're up close, if the objective is to kill them. There's no guarantee that the target will perish straight off, even if hit in the face; they may move quickly and there's the risk of ricochets. An experienced killer who is very close would go for the back or the chest, unless the person he wants to hit is unconscious."

[elone]

Key words here are 'I would have'. Not everyone reacts to stressors in the same way. I can pretty much guarantee that my husband would have reacted the way Martin has been said to react: confrontation. He sees a threat, and his hardwiring tells him to deal with it head-on.

And what does that get you ... dead.

[Tamhansen]

Look, being a foreigner, and not really understanding this stand your ground act. Could, say Trayvon's family kill Zimmerman and call on the same act, claiming they felt threatened by someone gunning at their family for no reason?

I'm not saying that's what happened, just that many perceive it that way, and the bill talks of the assumption of threat rather than factual threat.

I'm asking this purely to understand what the legislature entails, since I'm going on holiday to Florida next summer, and I'd really hate to get shot for wearing a hoody, for exmple.

[Cythieus]

Look, being a foreigner, and not really understanding this stand your ground act. Could, say Trayvon's family kill Zimmerman and call on the same act, claiming they felt threatened by someone gunning at their family for no reason?

I'm not saying that's what happened, just that many perceive it that way, and the bill talks of the assumption of threat rather than factual threat.

I'm asking this purely to understand what the legislature entails, since I'm going on holiday to Florida next summer, and I'd really hate to get shot for wearing a hoody, for exmple.

The stand your ground law is pretty clear that there has to be reasonable assumption of a threat. Meaning that usually a jury would decide if it was self defense, if the threat wouldn't be perceived by a reasonable person then it's not going to fly. Let's say that balloons scare you, there are people with that fear. One night you're walking minding your business and a little girl with a balloon who is lost without her parents wanders up. In fear for your life from the wafting terror, you shoot her in self defense.

This is not reasonable.

As to why Trayvon's family can't shoot at Zimmerman it's because the threat has to be immediate.

[vtboy]

Look, being a foreigner, and not really understanding this stand your ground act. Could, say Trayvon's family kill Zimmerman and call on the same act, claiming they felt threatened by someone gunning at their family for no reason?

I'm not saying that's what happened, just that many perceive it that way, and the bill talks of the assumption of threat rather than factual threat.

I'm asking this purely to understand what the legislature entails, since I'm going on holiday to Florida next summer, and I'd really hate to get shot for wearing a hoody, for exmple.

Self defense has long been recognized by the common law, and later by statute in most states, as a legal defense to homicide. As Azrael pointed out, the defense requires a reasonable perception of threat of imminent death or serious bodily harm. Many jurisdictions have further conditioned the use of deadly force in self defense to situations where the subject of an attack reasonably perceives he or she cannot avoid harm by retreat. Florida's "stand your ground" statute eliminates the obligation of reasonable retreat before one may respond to an attack with deadly force.

Florida's is one of a spate of similar statutes recently passed by state legislatures, chiefly at the urging of the National Rifle Association, a private group which, for many years, has opposed all efforts by government to regulate gun ownership. The NRA is widely perceived to be among the most powerful lobbying forces in the nation. Its counting house is overflowing with purchased politicians. The NRA's cause recently benefitted from decisions handed down by a sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court which pare back the powers of state and local governments to restrict individual access to hand guns, a right which, in the enlightened minds of the majority justices, is as fundamental component of our scheme of ordered liberty as the rights of speech, press and religion. Flush with this judicial victory, it appears the NRA turned its sights from expanding ownership of guns to expanding their use.

I would suggest that when you come to visit the Sunshine State, you come packin' and, with the blessing of its Legislature, be prepared to shoot first and ask questions later.

[Oniya]

As I understand it, Stand Your Ground was originally intended to allow homeowners to defend themselves in their home from an intruder, even if it's possible for them to retreat (i.e., by abandoning their house).  Applying it when someone is not defending a residence and is able to retreat (which Zimmerman was able to prior to exiting his car) seems counter to the original premise of the law.

[vtboy]

As I understand it, Stand Your Ground was originally intended to allow homeowners to defend themselves in their home from an intruder, even if it's possible for them to retreat (i.e., by abandoning their house).  Applying it when someone is not defending a residence and is able to retreat (which Zimmerman was able to prior to exiting his car) seems counter to the original premise of the law.

Before "stand your ground" legislation, many (perhaps most) states recognized a home invastion exception to the requirement of retreat. The effect of the "stand your ground" statutes is to eliminate the requirement of retreat in all situations.

[Callie Del Noire]

Before "stand your ground" legislation, many (perhaps most) states recognized a home invastion exception to the requirement of retreat. The effect of the "stand your ground" statutes is to eliminate the requirement of retreat in all situations.

The police said it applied BUT the state senator who word, submitted and pushed the bill through said it didn't. There is enough shady ground on this that the feds and state attorney both found reason to investigate the situation. I defintely expect to see some 'tweaks' to the law coming up soon.

[vtboy]

The police said it applied BUT the state senator who word, submitted and pushed the bill through said it didn't. There is enough shady ground on this that the feds and state attorney both found reason to investigate the situation. I defintely expect to see some 'tweaks' to the law coming up soon.

I am not surprised that those elected officials responsible for this benighted piece of legislation are now casting about for constructions at odds with its plain language.

I assume that what this state senator meant is that the defense should not be available to someone who has exposed himself to attack through his own unlawful aggression. Unfortunately, that is not what this idiot's law says. Moreover, strict construction rules applicable to criminal statutes might prevent a court from reading into the defense an unarticulated exception applicable when the defendant is the initial aggressor, especially if the initial aggression did not involve deadly force. At the time of the law's passage, I suspect this faithful public servant was more focused on pleasing his NRA masters than he was on the law's obvious invitation to unnecessary violence.

[Callie Del Noire]

I am not surprised that those elected officials responsible for this benighted piece of legislation are now casting about for constructions at odds with its plain language.

I assume that what this state senator meant is that the defense should not be available to someone who has exposed himself to attack through his own unlawful aggression. Unfortunately, that is not what this idiot's law says. Moreover, strict construction rules applicable to criminal statutes might prevent a court from reading into the defense an unarticulated exception applicable when the defendant is the initial aggressor, especially if the initial aggression did not involve deadly force. At the time of the law's passage, I suspect this faithful public servant was more focused on pleasing his NRA masters than he was on the law's obvious invitation to unnecessary violence.

Actually if you look at the language of the law, and I have (as did the man  who wrote it) and it comes down to this. Zimmerman called the cops..they (though the operator) warned him off. That is where 'just cause' goes out the window as far as I'm concerned. He was the aggressor from the beginning. He wasn't defending his house or business. There is sufficent evidence to show that he'd chased down others as well. Zimmerman's actions could easily be interpreted by the ongoing grand jury as 'aggressive beyond need' and there is a fair argument to be made that he'd been told to stand down.

[Tamhansen]

another question from a confudled ousider.

Is it true that due to this legislation martin's family can not file civil case against zimmerman. I heard this on a Dutch broadcast, so not sure if that is correct.

[Callie Del Noire]

another question from a confudled ousider.

Is it true that due to this legislation martin's family can not file civil case against zimmerman. I heard this on a Dutch broadcast, so not sure if that is correct.

You know.. I'm not sure. It would seem, to me, that they have justifiably standing to do so.

[Cythieus]

The Castle Doctrine is where SYG originates. Not sure about Florida, but here in Texas you can kill any home intruder you deem to be a threat or even someone who breaks into your car. At night you can shoot them outside or inside of the house, in the day I think they have to be inside (I remember that being something in a case that happened here)

another question from a confudled ousider.

Is it true that due to this legislation martin's family can not file civil case against zimmerman. I heard this on a Dutch broadcast, so not sure if that is correct.

Pretty sure they did, even though OJ got off he was still sued in civil court and lost the case.

[Callie Del Noire]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/02/tagblogsfindlawcom2012-injured-idUS90783590520120402


Apparently Zimmerman, AND the Homeowners Association CAN be taken to civil court. I imagine this will happen if the grand jury fails to bring charges against him.  200 households can be involved.  I imagine a LOt of homeowner groups will be revising the Watch program bylaws in the very near future.

[Oniya]

another question from a confudled ousider.

Is it true that due to this legislation martin's family can not file civil case against zimmerman. I heard this on a Dutch broadcast, so not sure if that is correct.

CNN says that they plan to file a civil case.  Typically, plaintiffs will wait until a criminal case has been concluded before filing a civil suit.  For one thing, anything that comes out at trial can be used in the civil case.  For another, if you have filed a civil suit, and you are called as a witness, the defense attorney is likely to bring up the civil case as a reason for you to testify in a biased manner.

I believe they have every basis for a 'wrongful death' case.  (Speaking as a non-lawyer, but avid court-follower)

[Tamhansen]

the reason I ask is this:

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, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(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).

[vtboy]

Actually if you look at the language of the law, and I have (as did the man  who wrote it) and it comes down to this. Zimmerman called the cops..they (though the operator) warned him off. That is where 'just cause' goes out the window as far as I'm concerned. He was the aggressor from the beginning. He wasn't defending his house or business. There is sufficient evidence to show that he'd chased down others as well. Zimmerman's actions could easily be interpreted by the ongoing grand jury as 'aggressive beyond need' and there is a fair argument to be made that he'd been told to stand down.

I, too, have read the statute. The problem with it is that it eliminates the duty to retreat unless the party claiming self-defense was engaged in some unlawful activity. It is not at all clear, however, that Zimmerman was doing anything unlawful before his encounter with Martin escalated into violence. Simply being "aggressive" would be insufficient, under the statute, for Zimmerman to forfeit the right to "stand his ground" (i.e., to subject him to a duty to retreat in the face of actual or threatened violence).

We are agreed that: (1) there is plenty of evidence for a grand jury to indict Zimmerman for manslaughter, at a minimum; and (2) Zimmerman was the "aggressor", in the sense that he pursued Martin. However, following another person, even if out of racial bias, is not a crime, and Zimmerman's disregard of the 911 dispatcher's advice does not make it one. If Zimmerman did little more than this, no matter how obnoxious or racist his behavior, he would have been entitled, under Florida's statute, to stand his ground in the face of an assault by Martin, assuming there was one.

There may, of course, be evidence, not yet made public, that the violence was the product of some unlawful conduct by Zimmerman which would have deprived him of the statutory exemption form retreat -- perhaps, for example, he attempted to restrain Martin physically, or was the first to resort to violence in an encounter which had previously been only verbal. Further, even if Zimmerman had the right to stand his ground, there may yet be reason for a jury to reject his self-defense defense --  his claimed perception of threat to life and limb may be found unreasonable or even wholly incredible. These are questions for a jury, and the real crime here is that for over three weeks following Martin's killing, the authorities did all they could to keep the case from ever going to a jury.

"Stand your ground" laws are bad public policy because they encourage resort to deadly force in situations where other effective alternatives are available. Much as I like cinematic showdowns at high noon on the streets of Dodge, I would prefer not see real ones on the manicured lawns of the Retreat at Twin Lakes.

[vtboy]

The behavior of Zimmerman's attorneys, who yesterday announced to the media the termination of their representation, is jaw-dropping.

The attorneys' disclosures that Zimmerman is presently residing outside of Florida, suspended communication with them, contacted the prosecutor's office on his own, and had discussions with Sean Hannity (which can only be presumed to have concerned the matter that lends him such notoriety) are potentially prejudicial to their ex-client. The termination of their professional relationships with Zimmerman would not have ended their duties to preserve his confidences and to avoid unnecessary disclosure of anything potentially harmful to him.

What are people smoking in that State?

[Torch]

The behavior of Zimmerman's attorneys, who yesterday announced to the media the termination of their representation, is jaw-dropping.

I was thinking that myself.

Certainly they can disclose that they are no longer representing him, but the rest? Has attorney-client privilege suddenly become optional?

[TheGlyphstone]

I was thinking that myself.

Certainly they can disclose that they are no longer representing him, but the rest? Has attorney-client privilege suddenly become optional?

Maybe not optional, but I presume it has a proportionate relationship with 'paying attorney fees'.

[Callie Del Noire]

I think I'll shoot my lawyer brother an email and ask him if the lawyers broke confidence.

[Callie Del Noire]

I'm surprised that no one has commented on Zimmerman's arrest.  I'm giving his defense team even money on using the 'Stand Your Ground' decision before trial.

[Jefepato]

I was thinking that myself.

Certainly they can disclose that they are no longer representing him, but the rest? Has attorney-client privilege suddenly become optional?

Speaking as a lawyer...well, I really am a lawyer but I have no damned experience.  I don't know if they crossed the line, but I would have kept my mouth shut in their position.

[Callie Del Noire]

Speaking as a lawyer...well, I really am a lawyer but I have no damned experience.  I don't know if they crossed the line, but I would have kept my mouth shut in their position.

At a guess.. I figured they did it to get their phones to clear up. I don't imagine the media would have left them alone without some sort of announcement.

[SilentScreams]

Florida is a disaster. The affidavit that the prosecution relies on is total crap. It's thin, and it does nothing to support a murder 2 charge. Had this affidavit been filed in New York, a judge would would toss the case. The whole thing smells like  misconduct there is no mention of the photos of Zimmerman's bloody head that ABC has. So either the prosecution is incompetent for not having them or the prosecution is motivated by something other then justice for not mentioning them. The aff. is three pages long and says absolutely nothing. It's an absolute joke and in most states (short list being NY, CA, VA, IL, TX, MA, PA, OH, MI, etc.) this three page piece of nonsense could in no way shape or form lead to grounds for a murder 2 charge.

The aff. that was filed is called a probable cause aff. Like the name suggests, it seeks to establish the probable cause of an action in a criminal case, whether that action is the filing of charges, the granting of a search warrant, or whatever else. There is a general rule that these affs. must stand on their own, or between their four corners. What that means is that all that is necessary to prove the case must be in the aff. and not located in other places. As was already mention, this is a three page aff. that fails to mention what ABC was nice enough to splash all over. The crime scene photos of Zimmerman's bloody skull.

The aff. is pretty standard until paragraph five, which is the first one to deal with any actual facts of the case. However, after explaining why Martin was there the aff. says that Zimmerman "profiled" him. That's all fine and good when one is talking to the media or blustering on a blog or standing around a water cooler. However, for lawyers and judges that is not fine and good. if you make a claim like that it can't be unsubstantiated. However, in the aff., which is supposed to be able to stand on its own without bits and pieces of stuff everywhere, there is no animus for the claim.

Without any animus the profiling alleged would be legal, since animus (things like race, religion, sex) is what makes it illegal. In addition, the aff. does not say where it gets this idea of profiling from. Fine if you are a lay person, but a conclusory statement if you are a lawyer (those are bad). So paragraph five, while being rhetorically charged for lay persons, actually does nothing to show probable cause for the crime charged.

Paragraph six also fails the four corners test. When you include a statement like "assumed he was a criminal" and fail to back it up, especially when there is a rule saying the document has to stand on its own, are judge's to assume this information was obtained from witnesses, through a psychic perhaps? Paragraph six also mentions Zimmerman was driving his car. It fails to mention from where to where (things like this, while boring and not important to the public are both interesting and very important to people like lawyers and judges because they help, sometimes, to prove or disprove the required elements of a crime). All in all paragraph six also fails to establish probable cause for the charge.

Paragraph seven; the state finally manages to attribute a statement to a source (in an aff. every sentence needs to be attributable to a source). However, we are now seven paragraphs into a three page aff. and the state has yet to outline or mention ANY legal wrongdoing. As in, in the first seven paragraphs of a VERY short aff. everything that has been done by both parties has been legal.

Paragraph 8; starts with a phone call Zimmerman was on. However, the rules for aff. writing are again ignored by the state. The aff. does not tell us to whom the call was made, how long it was, the exact time of the call, nor are we told how this information is known (again, not important to those watching the news on the couch or writing in newspapers but critical facts for lawyers and judges). The rest of paragraph eight, with the exception of the 911 tape, is full of conclusory statements that do not explain the why, what, when, where, how of the things claimed by the affiants. And, at the conclusion of paragraph eight in a three page aff. there is still no evidence of criminal or illegal activity.

Paragraph 9; starting with the first sentence "Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued." the problems begin. Who saw it? Was there video? Is it based on Zimmerman's testimony? Another witness? Who started it? These are all critical questions that should have been answered in the aff. itself yet they are not. One reasons why they are all so important is that a charge of murder two in Florida means that the state must prove the defendant acted with a "depraved mind". It's quite impossible to act with a depraved mind if you are not the one who starts the physical fight. Paragraph nine still contains no criminal activity.

Paragraph 10; Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest. Ok, this establishes that there was a homicide (legal term for for the killing of one human by another, different from murder which is the legal term for the unlawful killing of one human by another). Paragraph 10 fails to establish any criminality, or a depraved mind.

Paragraph 11; Martin dies from his wounds. No criminality or depraved min information.

Paragraph 12; cops have more evidence. Well? Where is it? More importantly, why are prosecutors and cops in Florida allowed to violate the rules of criminal procedure? The aff. brief, full of conclusory statements, and fails to establish the basic requirements for murder two. Florida has been a legal joke for the last two decades and it's good to see that they are continuing that fine tradition.

[TheGlyphstone]

If this gets thrown out before it hits trial because of how poorly written it is, does it still qualify for 'double jeopardy'?

[Callie Del Noire]

double jeopardy will apply I'm sure.. barring new evidence. I'm curious if criminal negligence and/or legal maneuvering counts?

Personally I think Murder 2 is a bit high.. Manslaughter would apply since there is no 'idiot with a gun' out there.

[Iniquitous]

So much about this whole mess stinks to high heaven and I suspect this is only going to get worse going from this point onward.

The waters are so muddied at this point and the only person who knows what truly happened is Zimmerman (someone who has a vested interest in trying to make sure everything points to him being innocent). I've long held that this was not about race but rather someone with the Barney Fife attitude - someone wanting to be the big law enforcement, wanting to be the hero and jumping the gun. Ignoring what a police dispatcher told him.

I hate that Trayvon has been (and will continue to be) dragged through the mud. I do not buy that Trayvon was a 'thug' that attacked Zimmerman. The man was stalking the boy. Period. Everything from that point created the 'perfect storm' that lead to a young man being dead. Things do not add up at all and now Florida is screwing up this. If Zimmerman sees any jail time for this I'd be seriously surprised.

And yes, I think he should see jail time. He was in the wrong and it was his decision to try and be the hero that lead to Trayvon dying.

[TheGlyphstone]

The waters are so muddied at this point and the only person who knows what truly happened is Zimmerman (someone who has a vested interest in trying to make sure everything points to him being innocent). I've long held that this was not about race but rather someone with the Barney Fife attitude - someone wanting to be the big law enforcement, wanting to be the hero and jumping the gun. Ignoring what a police dispatcher told him.

That's been my perspective on the whole thing. Zimmerman thought he was Batman/Dudley Do-Right/Barney Fife/Paul Blart, heroically saving the neighborhood from the evil criminal scum. How he apparently called 911 constantly with similarly frivolous false alarms backs that up.

And now, cue the conspiracy theories that this badly written affidavit was deliberately poorly written to get thrown out and invoke double jeopardy?

[Oniya]

I could be wrong, but I thought double jeopardy only attached once a verdict had been reached?  If not, we wouldn't have such things as mistrials leading to the prosecution refiling charges.

[Torch]

You aren't wrong, double jeopardy only applies after an acquittal or a conviction.

[Callie Del Noire]

You aren't wrong, double jeopardy only applies after an acquittal or a conviction.

Thank you for the clarification. Much appreciated.

[Oniya]

You aren't wrong, double jeopardy only applies after an acquittal or a conviction.

Thought so.  All those days watching Vinnie and the gang have paid off. ;D

[SilentScreams]

I don't think it was poorly written on purpose. I think it was poorly written because Florida courts have for many years, and continue to do so, played loose and fast with the rules- especially concerning criminal procedure. It's just now that their lazy attitudes are catching up to them as a case gets national attention.

Everything the state has is supposed to be in the charging document. Contrary to public perception (thanks, Law & Order) there are almost never surprises at the trial level. Think of a trial as a well directed play or symphonic piece. All the work has been done and the two sides are giving their best show to convince the jury.

That literally covers everything. During the course of discovery both sides see what the other side has, both sides have access to the witnesses and conduct depositions. The questions you see asked in a court room have already been asked and the witnesses have rehearsed their testimony numerous times with whichever counsel has decided to call them.

Manslaughter would have a much higher chance (but it still a stretch)since the prosecution is going to have a nearly impossible time showing the required elements of murder 2, such as depraved mind.

As to the situation itself, I don't think either party is innocent. Zimmerman seems like a law and order type who is all gung ho and hasn't been properly educated in things such as due process. However, Martin is no child either. There was the jewelry incident, and as it goes to trial we will hear more. For instance, if he has a sealed juvenile record which contains an assault charge that will be unsealed since it's material to the defense's case. Only time will tell.

The fact is, there are photos of the back of Zimmerman's head bloody and cut. Self defense has been used in Florida in domestic violence cases with a lot less evidence then that.

[Oniya]

It seems to be a habit/common practice for prosecutors to indict on the highest charge they can, so that they have all the lesser-includeds for the jury to fall back on during deliberations. 

[Callie Del Noire]

The thing is,scalp wounds can look worse than they appear to be. I'm reserving judgement.  I'm still surprised he got bond. I'd be worried about someone trying to get him

[SilentScreams]

The issue is not how bad they are, the issue is that they were there. I can tell you for a certainty that if someone is on top of me, slamming my head into the pavement I don't care what damage they may be causing, I'm going to shoot them (I have a conceal carry permit). There should be no difference between a 115 pound woman shooting someone in that situation v. a 200 pound man. The reasonable expectation is that the person doing the slamming is attempting to kill or do serious bodily injury to the person being slammed.

Juries can't randomly decide to charge someone at a lesser offense. Juries can only provide a verdict of guilt or innocence on the charges the state files. For an excellent example of the govt. overstepping its case see the Kasey Anthony matter. Did she kill her child? Probably not, and the state was unable to prove the case that she did so she was acquitted. Did she negligently or recklessly contribute to her child's death? Absolutely, however the state did not go for the lesser charge that their case supported. The jury does not have the ability to randomly decide to charge someone at a lower offense. Juries are fact finders who are narrowly constrained by, in criminal cases, the elements of the statute(s) for the charge the state has filed.

[Iniquitous]

The issue is not how bad they are, the issue is that they were there. I can tell you for a certainty that if someone is on top of me, slamming my head into the pavement I don't care what damage they may be causing, I'm going to shoot them (I have a conceal carry permit). There should be no difference between a 115 pound woman shooting someone in that situation v. a 200 pound man. The reasonable expectation is that the person doing the slamming is attempting to kill or do serious bodily injury to the person being slammed.

The part you are not mentioning is the fact that this 200 lb man stalked a teenager because he believed he was 'up to no good'. He ignored the police dispatcher and chose to hunt down Trayvon - who knew he was being followed. I'm sorry - Trayvon had every right to defend himself against a stranger stalking him at night. Zimmerman did not have the right to be out with a gun doing Neighborhood Watch.

Sorry - Zimmerman is in the wrong here.

[Oniya]

The issue is not how bad they are, the issue is that they were there. I can tell you for a certainty that if someone is on top of me, slamming my head into the pavement I don't care what damage they may be causing, I'm going to shoot them (I have a conceal carry permit). There should be no difference between a 115 pound woman shooting someone in that situation v. a 200 pound man. The reasonable expectation is that the person doing the slamming is attempting to kill or do serious bodily injury to the person being slammed.

Juries can't randomly decide to charge someone at a lesser offense. Juries can only provide a verdict of guilt or innocence on the charges the state files. For an excellent example of the govt. overstepping its case see the Kasey Anthony matter. Did she kill her child? Probably not, and the state was unable to prove the case that she did so she was acquitted. Did she negligently or recklessly contribute to her child's death? Absolutely, however the state did not go for the lesser charge that their case supported. The jury does not have the ability to randomly decide to charge someone at a lower offense. Juries are fact finders who are narrowly constrained by, in criminal cases, the elements of the statute(s) for the charge the state has filed.

No, not randomly - but in most cases, the judge gives instructions for lesser-included offenses.  If the jury doesn't find that the prosecution has met the burden for murder, they are allowed to consider whether the prosecution has proved manslaughter, assault, or certain specific other offenses.  The prosecutor puts forth what they think is the highest offense the evidence supports.

Edit:  In regard to FL. v. Anthony (thank you Sunshine Laws):

INTRODUCTION TO HOMICIDE

In this case, Casey Marie Anthony is accused of Murder in the First Degree, Aggravated

Child Abuse, Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child, and four counts of Providing False Information to a Law Enforcement Officer.

Murder in the First Degree includes the lesser crimes of Murder in the Second Degree,

Manslaughter and Third Degree Felony Murder, all of which are unlawful.

A killing that is excusable or was committed by the use of justifiable deadly force is lawful.

If you find Caylee Marie Anthony was killed by Casey Marie Anthony, you will then consider the circumstances surrounding the killing in deciding if the killing was Murder in the First Degree or was Murder in the Second Degree or Manslaughter or Third Degree Felony Murderwhether the killing was excusable or resulted from justifiable use of deadly force

source

[blknwhite11]

The scalp wound looks fake to me. After looking at it based on a screenshot, I fail to see any cuts or gashes where the blood comes from. It's like it starts abruptly.

But this case has just gotten more atrocious by the minute, and I refuse to watch anything on the news about it. Bottom line is Zimmerman shot and killed a minor, allegedly, in cold blood. Ethnicity shouldn't be such an issue as it currently is.

[Elias]

I am trying to avoid this case because of how sensational it is, and find it incredibly sad that the only reason this young mans death makes it to the media is because a white man (He looks Hispanic by the way which I only bring up because I hate the race war concept I would like to think the majority is past out and out discrimination, if not prejudice) pulled the trigger. Do you realize how much black on black death goes unreported? Why aren't their deaths being used to fix the broken neighborhoods ravaged by gangs, poverty and drug dealers? Anyway my worry is the media makes good money off of race war and may skew things against Zimmerman.

I mean I think a lot of the people here are intelligent and are arguing things well, BUT you cant have an honest argument if you dont have the facts. I do know this on the REPORTING, and its not much but is true.

A) Multiple networks spliced tapes so it sounded like he was OBVIOUSLY racist, I believe that's now been proven true, this did happen. So what else has the media faked to push our hatred onto this white male?

B) There was a history of crime in the neighborhood. I tried to read every comment not sure if this was mentioned, but multiple break ins had occurred and Treyvon fit the description of those acting in such a way within the neighborhood. African American males wearing hoodies had broken into multiple homes in the vicinity and people had taken it upon themselves to protect the neighborhood, not just Zimmerman.

Thats it, its not much. But I figured I would throw them out there since not everyone gets to hear about that. Could this be racially motivated? Definitely, I pray it wasn't, and yet I tell myself it doesn't matter anymore because perception dictates it will be about the color of his skin. Us hating one another seems more important than the loss of this life.

I just hope the jury can see the truth they will get a lot more information than we will. They always do. If there was more to Zimmerman, and he acted out of vigilantism, racism or just plain stupidity I hope he goes to jail. If this boy acted violently too soon and Zimmerman in fear (Negligent though it may be) pulled the trigger killed him and is haunted for his actions, I think the tragedy is enough.

[Iniquitous]

As I said before, I've never bought into the race thing. For whatever reason, it just didn't sit well when I read the news stories and it actually irked (still irks) the shit out of me to have the race card thrown in.

What I look at is A: Neighborhood watch is not suppose to be armed - Zimmerman was. B: Zimmerman was told by the dispatcher that they did not need him to follow Trayvon - Zimmerman continued.

Now, I've read somewhere, can't remember where now for the life of me, that Zimmerman's story of what happened changed a few times. I'm willing to grant that in such a situation he wasn't thinking as clearly as you or I and things may have become garbled in his thoughts - but it is still suspicious. The fact of the matter is Zimmerman took it into his own hands to track Trayvon despite being told the police did not need to do that (go figure - they tell you not to follow/confront suspected criminals for just this reason - someone is likely to end up dead) - Trayvon, knowing he was being followed, confronted Zimmerman when he could not get away from him.

Zimmerman is at fault for trying to be the hero.

BTW - I suspect the race card was thrown in more because of how the police handled things and the fact no one notified Trayvon's family for three days.

[Callie Del Noire]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/04/23/marissa-alexander-shoot-to-kill-or-you-must-not-be-scared-enough/

Here's the other side of the 'stand your ground coin'. Apparently an order of protection, an established history of battery and being in one's home doesn't count as stand your ground.

[vtboy]

BTW - I suspect the race card was thrown in more because of how the police handled things and the fact no one notified Trayvon's family for three days.

The initial evident indifference of the police and prosecutor to "just another" violent death of a black kid, far more than whatever racial stereotyping may have led Zimmerman to stalk Martin, is what has been so troubling about this case.

Also disturbing is that the weakness of the charging instrument may be attributable, not only to the questionable legal skills of the prosecutor, but to the failure of the police to discover and preserve evidence in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. 

[Iniquitous]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/04/23/marissa-alexander-shoot-to-kill-or-you-must-not-be-scared-enough/

Here's the other side of the 'stand your ground coin'. Apparently an order of protection, an established history of battery and being in one's home doesn't count as stand your ground.

Wow... what the... I literally cannot put my thoughts into words after reading that.

[Trieste]

Wow... what the... I literally cannot put my thoughts into words after reading that.

Agreed... there just aren't enough curse words in the English language to express it. >.>

[SilentScreams]

In regard to the assault with a deadly weapon incident.

I would argue that had she shot her husband she would not have been charged, regardless of whether he died or was wounded.

My previous experience in law enforcement, granted not in Florida, had similar rules for those of who who carried firearms. Basically, if we sighted in on someone we had an obligation to shoot because to sight in on someone was, and is, considered the point of no return in Alaska. I know that different jurisdictions have different rules, like in NY, especially the city, law enforcement are allowed to sight in, or aim, their weapons at people they are arresting. If a law enforcement officer (city police, Troopers, COs, Court Officers, etc.) sights in on someone and they do not have just cause for doing so they can be charged with attempted murder. Just cause includes anything relating to the defense of life, self defense, etc. The Alaskan rules stipulate that just pointing the gun at someone is use of deadly force because the threat of deadly force exists in sighting the gun in.

I'm not quite sure why I gave all that background. I'm tired. However, I do remember my point, thankfully.

The assault she is charged with is not (one would hope) against her husband but against the public at large. When you discharge a firearm you, the shooter, is responsible for that bullet. You are also responsible for ensuring that the gun is fired in a safe direction, or in a necessary direction. By firing into the ceiling she was assaulting the public. She has no control of that bullet once she pulls the trigger. If she pulled it on purpose to frighten her husband it IS a crime because she needlessly placed the public at risk. Had she shot into the ground, provided she was on the first floor, there would not have been a crime.

I could be wrong on the state but I believe it was in New Jersey sometime between 1995-2005 but at a New Year's party a police officer fired his weapon into the air celebrating. The bullet traveled across a lake, through a window, and killed a sleeping child. The officer was understandably fired and charged with murder. This is a similar situation. Guns are not toys and if one decides to shoot one MUST (has a legal responsibility in most jurisdictions) have reasonable knowledge of where that bullet is going and what it is going to do.

The woman in the assault case had a legal right to shoot her husband if she so desired. She, same as everyone, always, did not have a right to recklessly fire in an unsafe direction where she had no knowledge of where that bullet was going to go or what is was going to do.

She was properly charged. Unfortunately, I wish hunters would be charged like this. There are no such thing as accidental shootings, only negligent shootings. A gun is a responsibility that one voluntarily undertakes. Hunters need to be held to the same standard that this woman was.

[Elias]

I did not know that Silent, that's something I'd have never thought about.

[Valerian]

Well, I don't have any particular legal or law enforcement training, so I may be misunderstanding the finer points, but according to the link Callie gave, she was charged with and convicted of three counts of assault with a deadly weapon -- one for her ex and one for each of her ex's two children, who he brought with him.  If the argument is that, by firing a single bullet wide of the three people in front of her, she put the life of a fourth, unknown person at risk, that would seem to me to be only one charge, not three charges specifically naming the people she deliberately avoided shooting.

Also, since the bullet didn't hit anyone, assault doesn't seem like the proper charge anyway.  Reckless endangerment seems more appropriate -- I've never heard of charges of assault against a person or persons unknown.

[Iniquitous]

My issue with what was posted is the fact that the woman had a restraining order on the husband, there was previous documented evidence that he was violent and she was charged because the woman prosecuting did not think she was in 'fear of her life' because she didn't run out the first available door - among other things.

I went through an abusive marriage. I remember quite clearly being terrified that he would go too far. I remember running through the house trying to get away from him and instead of running out the front door I locked myself in the bathroom.

I'm sorry. That charge is bullshit. There is no reason that woman should be sitting in jail just because she fired a warning shot and his actions - to leave the house immediately and rush to the police department to file charges against her just shows how manipulative the asshole is. He couldn't 'punish' her by beating her/killing her so he did the next best thing in his mind. He deprived her of her child and fucked up the rest of her life. Classic abuser mentality.

[SilentScreams]

Warning shots are not allowed. You don't fire warning shots. If you aim a gun at someone you shoot them or you don't. You don't miss on purpose, missing on purpose is a crime. Warning shots are fin and interesting in the media and in movies and television but legally they are a crime.

As far as assault charges go....Florida has codified much of the common law and sticks with the original legal definitions. Assault is the the threat of force whereas battery is actually injuring someone with that force. So assault is the threat of force, battery is the application of that force. 

[Valerian]

I'm still not clear on why she was convicted of three charges of assault against three specific people, though.  If the warning shot is the crime, shouldn't one shot equal one count of whatever the appropriate charge would be?

[Oniya]

As SilentScreams explained - assault is the threat of force.  If I am brandishing a weapon in front of three people, all three people are threatened by that weapon.

[SilentScreams]

The reason why one shot resulted in three charges is because there were three (at least) potential victims. Each victim is equally threatened by the bullet until the bullet actually hits someone. Those people don't even need to know that they are being, or have been, threatened.

[Valerian]

Then the warning shot doesn't seem to be the real issue, if simply holding the gun in their presence is what makes it assault.  If she hadn't fired at all, the charges would still have been exactly the same, yes?  Which seems illogical... but I know, the law is usually only logical from the legal standpoint, which is often very narrow.

I read through the ex's deposition, by the way, and it was pretty appalling.  He admitted to having lied to the police when he filed the charges against his wife -- they gave him a threat assessment questionnaire, and he stated that she had previously threatened him with a weapon and that he believed she might intentionally kill him.  He also said that she had been violent to him before, and recanted that as well.  In the posted deposition, he says flat out that he lied because he was "mad as hell so I would say anything".

[Zakharra]

Then the warning shot doesn't seem to be the real issue, if simply holding the gun in their presence is what makes it assault.  If she hadn't fired at all, the charges would still have been exactly the same, yes?  Which seems illogical... but I know, the law is usually only logical from the legal standpoint, which is often very narrow.

I read through the ex's deposition, by the way, and it was pretty appalling.  He admitted to having lied to the police when he filed the charges against his wife -- they gave him a threat assessment questionnaire, and he stated that she had previously threatened him with a weapon and that he believed she might intentionally kill him.  He also said that she had been violent to him before, and recanted that as well.  In the posted deposition, he says flat out that he lied because he was "mad as hell so I would say anything".

That part right there should have gotten the charges reduced or thrown out. He admitted he would have done and said anything to get  back at her. I bet if he had had the gun, he wouldn't have stopped at just shooting the ceiling.

It's sad because he will probably get the kids now.

[SilentScreams]

Even if he admitted to lieing  she still fired the gun. That part can't be undone. Again, if she had merely brandished a gun at him it doesn't matter if he felt threatened or not, the fact that she did it is the crime, not the mental state of mind of the victim.

[Malthas]

Considering even the man who came up with the whole Stand your Ground law says it does not apply to Zimmerman and after looking at all the evidence that exist from the phone calls I really find it hard to believe how anyone could blame Trayvon for this or that he acted in the wrong.   He was a poor dumb kid in the wrong place at the wrong time doing nothing that any other kid would have done.     Did Zimmerman mean to kill him?   No but that's what he ended up doing.     The police in this whole case tried to cover it up but they've been rather exposed for being corrupt and incompetent at best.   The whole thing is a mess.   

If by some chance Zimmerman gets off or doesn't go to jail there is only one outcome I see and it's in the vein of the LA Riots.   

It's been very disgusting how the victim has been vilified so far by some people and media.

[vtboy]

Considering even the man who came up with the whole Stand your Ground law says it does not apply to Zimmerman and after looking at all the evidence that exist from the phone calls I really find it hard to believe how anyone could blame Trayvon for this or that he acted in the wrong.

This fellow who claims authorship of the statute should have done a better job in drafting it, as it may very well apply to Zimmerman. No matter how provocative Zimmerman's conduct in stalking Martin and how easily he might have avoided danger, the plain language of the statute appears to allow him a defense if he: (1) was lawfully present at the place of the killing; (2) was not engaged in any unlawful activity at the time; and (3) reasonably perceived that the use of deadly force was necessary to avoid great bodily harm or death.     

There does not seem to be much question but that Zimmerman had the right to be where he was when he shot Martin. The unsettled questions are whether he was engaged in some unlawful activity (e.g., whether he assaulted Martin) and whether his claim that he feared severe injury or death was true and the fear reasonable. Assuming delay and apathy on the part of the Sanford PD did not result in loss of critical evidence, it will be interesting to see what proof the prosecution will muster on these issues.   

[Cythieus]

This fellow who claims authorship of the statute should have done a better job in drafting it, as it may very well apply to Zimmerman. No matter how provocative Zimmerman's conduct in stalking Martin and how easily he might have avoided danger, the plain language of the statute appears to allow him a defense if he: (1) was lawfully present at the place of the killing; (2) was not engaged in any unlawful activity at the time; and (3) reasonably perceived that the use of deadly force was necessary to avoid great bodily harm or death.     

There does not seem to be much question but that Zimmerman had the right to be where he was when he shot Martin. The unsettled questions are whether he was engaged in some unlawful activity (e.g., whether he assaulted Martin) and whether his claim that he feared severe injury or death was true and the fear reasonable. Assuming delay and apathy on the part of the Sanford PD did not result in loss of critical evidence, it will be interesting to see what proof the prosecution will muster on these issues.   

And you're already wrong, the law states that you can't carry a gun and provoke someone so you can use it. So he was engaged in illegal activity.

[errantwandering]

According to Zimmerman's testimony, he turned back when the dispatcher told him to, and was then sucker-punched by Martin.  I don't know if that's true or not, but in the absence of compelling evidence that he's lying, this certainly seems like a case of self defense.  He was injured when police got there, his record with the neighborhood watch is one of responsibility, rather than reckless violence, and I haven't seen a single bit of evidence that he "stalked" Trayvon, nor that he initiated the violence.  This case is a tragedy, but innocent until proven guilty still applies.

[Callie Del Noire]

According to Zimmerman's testimony, he turned back when the dispatcher told him to, and was then sucker-punched by Martin.  I don't know if that's true or not, but in the absence of compelling evidence that he's lying, this certainly seems like a case of self defense.  He was injured when police got there, his record with the neighborhood watch is one of responsibility, rather than reckless violence, and I haven't seen a single bit of evidence that he "stalked" Trayvon, nor that he initiated the violence.  This case is a tragedy, but innocent until proven guilty still applies.

Thing is... It doesn't add up right. Why would Trayvon double back and attack him?  There is more to this than anyone but Zimmerman knows.

[Cythieus]

According to Zimmerman's testimony, he turned back when the dispatcher told him to, and was then sucker-punched by Martin.  I don't know if that's true or not, but in the absence of compelling evidence that he's lying, this certainly seems like a case of self defense.  He was injured when police got there, his record with the neighborhood watch is one of responsibility, rather than reckless violence, and I haven't seen a single bit of evidence that he "stalked" Trayvon, nor that he initiated the violence.  This case is a tragedy, but innocent until proven guilty still applies.

If he had been in custody from the start and the case hadn't been treated so badly by officers I would agree, but when someone tampers with evidence in your favor it's safe to say you did something wrong.

[Etah dna Evol]

I hate peoples opinions on this subject. Can we start with, Zimmerman should not have been arrested. In America we have a little something called the presumption of innocence, which means that in criminal cases defendants are innocent until PROVEN guilty. They are jailed only if they are a flight risk.

[Cythieus]

I hate peoples opinions on this subject. Can we start with, Zimmerman should not have been arrested. In America we have a little something called the presumption of innocence, which means that in criminal cases defendants are innocent until PROVEN guilty. They are jailed only if they are a flight risk.

Murdering someone that you stalked and provoked usually will get you arrested. Especially after a family member of yours tampers with the case to make things look more favorable and holds up the investigation for over a month.

[errantwandering]

Azrael, what evidence is there that he provoked Trayvon, and what evidence is there that there was evidence tampering?  So far I haven't seen any at all.

[Etah dna Evol]

Murdering someone that you stalked and provoked usually will get you arrested. Especially after a family member of yours tampers with the case to make things look more favorable and holds up the investigation for over a month.

Luckily for all of us, in America, trials determine that. Not the media.

[Malthas]

Azrael, what evidence is there that he provoked Trayvon, and what evidence is there that there was evidence tampering?  So far I haven't seen any at all.

You mean besides the fact that witnesses who talked with the cops have said that the cops tried to tell them it was Trayvon attacking and being the aggressor and that they heard Zimmerman calling for help instead of the other?     

Or how about how there is some recording of him basically confronting Travyson asking who he is before everything happens.

eyewitness to the death of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman about what she saw that night. She had already spoken out anonymously, but she came forward today with more information. She revealed that after the police brought her in for questioning, she offered to bring them to the scene of the crime and show them what happened, but they declined her offer.

She told Banfield that she heard two cries of help, the second one more of a “devastating, desperate” yell. She said she believes that the yell came from Martin, and heard them loudly arguing outside her window, even if she couldn’t precisely decipher what she was saying. When Banfield asked if it sounded like a confrontation, she agreed. The eyewitness did call 911 and mentioned that she did hear a gun went off. She described the experience as like watching a movie and telling the dispatcher what was happening outside her home, play-by-play.

At one point, she held up her phone near the screen door so the dispatcher could hear what was happening. Banfield asked, when the gun went off, who it looked like was on top. The eyewitness answered that it looked like “the larger man,” meaning Zimmerman, was on top of Martin. At one point, Zimmerman started walking closer to where the eyewitness could see him, but could not discern whether his face was bloodied or not. When she was called in for questioning by the police, she said their questions did not necessarily have some depth to them, but merely just them asking her for a basic recap of what happened.

She offered to take them to the location of the crime, but claims that they were not interested. Banfield pressed her to explain why, but she said the police could answer that question better than her. And, in fact, the lead investigator told her that she misheard, and that it was Zimmerman who cried for help, not Martin. Following a community meeting to discuss the issue, she said she contacted the police two more times, but they did not get back to her.

That is not the only person who said the cops basically tried to change what she saw/heard as well.

Also what was up with the cops testing Trayvon's corpse for drugs yet didn't test Zimmerman at all?   As the law is suppose to do in such a case.   

Trayvon's parents didn't even get told their son was dead for two days despite them contacting police that their son was missing.   

[SilentScreams]

I was unaware that Zimmerman had a history of following Martin, that Martin filed a police report, and that Zimmerman had some form of protection order against him for stalking.

Stalking, despite the best attempts by the media, is a legal term that means Martin was, over a period of time, able to prove that Zimmerman was engaged in activity that fulfills the stalking statute. Following someone for a few minutes, while it makes for splashy headlines, is not the legal standard for stalking.

[vtboy]

And you're already wrong, the law states that you can't carry a gun and provoke someone so you can use it. So he was engaged in illegal activity.

To what law are you referring? The "stand your ground" statute makes no mention of provocation. In any case, if there is some other statute in Florida the prohibits "provocation," whether Zimmerman did anything to provoke an attack by Martin would still be an open question for trial.

[Oniya]

To what law are you referring? The "stand your ground" statute makes no mention of provocation. In any case, if there is some other statute in Florida the prohibits "provocation," whether Zimmerman did anything to provoke an attack by Martin would still be an open question for trial.

I've actually heard this from legal experts.  If you have a gun, and you go out and make someone mad enough that they lunge at you, you can't then claim 'self-defense' and shoot them.  You would be considered the 'first aggressor'.

[vtboy]

I've actually heard this from legal experts.  If you have a gun, and you go out and make someone mad enough that they lunge at you, you can't then claim 'self-defense' and shoot them.  You would be considered the 'first aggressor'.

It's not quite that simple.

To constitute "provocation", barring a criminal defedant from asserting self-defense, the defendant must have engaged in conduct with the specific intentions of: (1) provoking the victim to respond with physical force; and (2) killing or severely injuring the victim. Moreover, in most jurisdictions (I don't know about Florida), mere verbalizations are insufficient to constitute provocation.

Thus, simply making someone mad enough to attack you, whether you are wearing a gun or not, is insufficient to bar the self-defense defense. Were this not the case, anyone who walks into a bar in Boston, for example, wearing a New York Yankees cap, would be at risk of forfeiting the right to defend himself in the event his apparel induced an assault. To lose the right to assert the defense, you must do something, and generally something physical, with the actual intention that your act will induce someone to attack you, and with the further intention that you will then inflict great harm on your attacker.

Whether Zimmerman, in "pursuing" Martin, intended to push Martin into attacking him so that he would have an excuse to shoot is a question with which the jury will have to grapple.

[Cythieus]

I like how so many of you are ignoring the past things Zimmerman did when asking me these questions even while other people state outright what I'm saying. As someone who lives with a lot of gun owners and has considered gun ownership myself there are a lot of things a person carrying a gun can't do. Like drink, or give someone the finger while driving, that's considered provocation. Stalking definitely falls into that category.

You're grasping at straws for this man to be innocent until proven guilty when he's already amassed some guilt just in the actions he admitted to doing and the ones he was shown to be doing before this.

As for Malthas's whole spiel about him calling for help and witnesses saying he was getting beat up. Getting beat up doesn't automatically mean you get to use a gun. Stalking someone with your gun and harassing them might get you beat up though. Simply being in a fight isn't just cause, especially when your opponent is unarmed and you shouldn't have been bothering them anyway.

Also:

Thus, simply making someone mad enough to attack you, whether you are wearing a gun or not, is insufficient to bar the self-defense defense. Were this not the case, anyone who walks into a bar in Boston, for example, wearing a New York Yankees cap, would be at risk of forfeiting the right to defend himself in the event his apparel induced an assault. To lose the right to assert the defense, you must do something, and generally something physical, with the actual intention that your act will induce someone to attack you, and with the further intention that you will then inflict great harm on your attacker.

You can't legally carry a gun while intoxicated in most states and I'm pretty sure that in some you can't enter a bar with a gun, that's part of the law. If you're talking about regular self defense in the case of someone in a bar starting an argument that's different. But that's also why guns in bars are discouraged because stupid arguments like the one mentioned can turn into someone getting murdered.

Let's go over the facts we've got a gun owner breaking some of the rules of gun ownership. He's going looking for trouble.
The same person is also a neighborhood watch officer, breaking one of their rules, carrying a gun.
He was also stalking someone based on appearance, even if you take the race thing out all that he had to go on was appearance.
And you've got a seventeen year old guilty of minor assault (at best) who is now dead with the person who stalked, killed and provoked them basically acting like he was in his right to do so.

[vtboy]

I like how so many of you are ignoring the past things Zimmerman did when asking me these questions even while other people state outright what I'm saying. As someone who lives with a lot of gun owners and has considered gun ownership myself there are a lot of things a person carrying a gun can't do. Like drink, or give someone the finger while driving, that's considered provocation. Stalking definitely falls into that category.

You're grasping at straws for this man to be innocent until proven guilty when he's already amassed some guilt just in the actions he admitted to doing and the ones he was shown to be doing before this.

As for Malthas's whole spiel about him calling for help and witnesses saying he was getting beat up. Getting beat up doesn't automatically mean you get to use a gun. Stalking someone with your gun and harassing them might get you beat up though. Simply being in a fight isn't just cause, especially when your opponent is unarmed and you shouldn't have been bothering them anyway.

Also:

You can't legally carry a gun while intoxicated in most states and I'm pretty sure that in some you can't enter a bar with a gun, that's part of the law. If you're talking about regular self defense in the case of someone in a bar starting an argument that's different. But that's also why guns in bars are discouraged because stupid arguments like the one mentioned can turn into someone getting murdered.

Let's go over the facts we've got a gun owner breaking some of the rules of gun ownership. He's going looking for trouble.
The same person is also a neighborhood watch officer, breaking one of their rules, carrying a gun.
He was also stalking someone based on appearance, even if you take the race thing out all that he had to go on was appearance.
And you've got a seventeen year old guilty of minor assault (at best) who is now dead with the person who stalked, killed and provoked them basically acting like he was in his right to do so.

You misunderstand me.

I'm not saying Zimmerman should be acquitted, much less that he shouldn't stand trial. There was sufficient evidence at the time of the shooting to establish probable cause for his arrest and, I suspect, to sustain a prima facie case at trial on, at least, manslaughter. The failure of the police and prosecutor to arrest and charge Zimmerman in the immediate aftermath of the shooting was a disgrace.

I also believe, though, that Zimmerman will be able to muster sufficient evidence at trial to require the judge to charge the jury to consider his affirmative defense that he shot Martin defending himself from an assault he reasonably believed would kill or seriously injure him, as well as the subordinate issue of whether Zimmerman provoked (as that term is defined by Florida law) such an attack. Not being privy to the evidence that will be offered by other side, I wouldn't presume to predict how a jury would find on self-defense. It may well turn out that Zimmerman will benefit from Florida's very poorly thought out statutes, as well as from the possible loss of evidence due to police inaction in the weeks following the shooting.

It would be a miscarriage of justice, as grave as the initial official indifference to Martin's death, however, if Zimmerman were barred from presenting his self-defense claim at trial. I have read a few Florida cases on the subject, and the evidentiary threshold a defendant must meet to submit the defense to a jury is quite minimal.

My Boston barroom example did not assume that the wayward Yankee fan necessarily defended himself with a gun. My point, in any case, was only that stoking another's anger is not sufficient, in itself, to make out the sort of provocation which would bar the fan from acting in self-defense.

[SilentScreams]

Ok, 784.048 is Fl's stalking statute. Since there still seems to be so much confusion over what stalking is I decided to post it.

(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person’s child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) Any person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person’s property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(5) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a minor under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

If you notice, stalking is the willful, malicious, and REPEATED following of a person with the intent of doing them harm. Zimmerman does not satisfy the elements of stalking. Please, let's try to be less like the media and more like educated adults in our conversations. Stalking is not some gee-whiz word that should be tossed about to get people angry or used to scare people. Zimmerman was not stalking Martin. Stop throwing that word around. 

[Oniya]

So - bringing this current (-ish - I'm watching this morning's hearing on DVR-delay).

George Zimmerman's attorney declared his client 'indigent for cost' during the bond hearing last Friday.  Family members were asked about his website (already taken down), and no one admitted to knowing about or having access to the funds that may or may not have been raised by it.  The judge set the bond, as was proper.  (Bond is supposed to be there to ensure you show up for trial, as you would be losing any assets that you put up if you don't show.)  Zimmerman met the bond, and was whisked off into GPS-monitored hiding. 

Today, Zimmerman's attorney announces that $200,000 was raised through the website.  Of that, $150,000 was available last Friday, which would have easily covered the bond.  Is there a problem here?

[Malthas]

As for Malthas's whole spiel about him calling for help and witnesses saying he was getting beat up. Getting beat up doesn't automatically mean you get to use a gun. Stalking someone with your gun and harassing them might get you beat up though. Simply being in a fight isn't just cause, especially when your opponent is unarmed and you shouldn't have been bothering them anyway.

I believe you misread my post or got my name mixed up with someone else.

I agree that he should have not have used a gun nor carried one around. 

[SilentScreams]

The bond issue shouldn't be a problem. It will depend on what the judge wants to do about it but as long as the bond is met, either through assets or money, the court is usually happy.

Money is most often used for bonds but property or other assets equaling the monetary value are just as good. It's not unreasonable for an account full of donations to be in limbo if those donations are not made to a single person, or are not made to an organization, or are made for a specific purpose. For instance, and I have no idea if this is the case here but it very well may be, donations for legal defense may only be available for legal defense and may only be accessible by the lawyers and, depending in Florida law, might not legally be usable for bond since that's not technically a legal defense expense.

[Cythieus]

You misunderstand me.

I'm not saying Zimmerman should be acquitted, much less that he shouldn't stand trial. There was sufficient evidence at the time of the shooting to establish probable cause for his arrest and, I suspect, to sustain a prima facie case at trial on, at least, manslaughter. The failure of the police and prosecutor to arrest and charge Zimmerman in the immediate aftermath of the shooting was a disgrace.

I also believe, though, that Zimmerman will be able to muster sufficient evidence at trial to require the judge to charge the jury to consider his affirmative defense that he shot Martin defending himself from an assault he reasonably believed would kill or seriously injure him, as well as the subordinate issue of whether Zimmerman provoked (as that term is defined by Florida law) such an attack. Not being privy to the evidence that will be offered by other side, I wouldn't presume to predict how a jury would find on self-defense. It may well turn out that Zimmerman will benefit from Florida's very poorly thought out statutes, as well as from the possible loss of evidence due to police inaction in the weeks following the shooting.

It would be a miscarriage of justice, as grave as the initial official indifference to Martin's death, however, if Zimmerman were barred from presenting his self-defense claim at trial. I have read a few Florida cases on the subject, and the evidentiary threshold a defendant must meet to submit the defense to a jury is quite minimal.

My Boston barroom example did not assume that the wayward Yankee fan necessarily defended himself with a gun. My point, in any case, was only that stoking another's anger is not sufficient, in itself, to make out the sort of provocation which would bar the fan from acting in self-defense.

It's really hard to prove you had probable cause to shoot an unarmed man outside of your house or car. If someone bursts into your home and you have reason to believe they are armed it's one thing. Someone in the street minding their business when you follow them is entirely different. No one in a legal field I've talked to thinks this is self defense, even the law's creator doesn't think it is.

Ok, 784.048 is Fl's stalking statute. Since there still seems to be so much confusion over what stalking is I decided to post it.

(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person’s child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) Any person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person’s property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(5) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a minor under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

If you notice, stalking is the willful, malicious, and REPEATED following of a person with the intent of doing them harm. Zimmerman does not satisfy the elements of stalking. Please, let's try to be less like the media and more like educated adults in our conversations. Stalking is not some gee-whiz word that should be tossed about to get people angry or used to scare people. Zimmerman was not stalking Martin. Stop throwing that word around.

Stalking isn't just a legal word, that's not how I'm using it.

[Tamhansen]

stalk 2  (stôk)
v. stalked, stalk·ing, stalks
v.intr.
1. To walk with a stiff, haughty, or angry gait: stalked off in a huff.
2. To move threateningly or menacingly.
3. To track prey or quarry.
v.tr.
1. To pursue by tracking stealthily.
2. To follow or observe (a person) persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement.
3. To go through (an area) in pursuit of prey or quarry.

[vtboy]

It's really hard to prove you had probable cause to shoot an unarmed man outside of your house or car. If someone bursts into your home and you have reason to believe they are armed it's one thing. Someone in the street minding their business when you follow them is entirely different. No one in a legal field I've talked to thinks this is self defense, even the law's creator doesn't think it is.

Stalking isn't just a legal word, that's not how I'm using it.

With all the criticism drawn by the "stand your ground" statute in the wake of Martin's killing, it is hardly surprising that those who sponsored the law in the Florida legislature are now doing their best to put their misguided handiwork in the least damning light. The statute they passed, which is based on an NRA model, eliminates the legal duty to retreat from an attack as long as the defender has the right to be where he is and is not engaged in unlawful activity. There seems to be little question that Zimmerman was lawfully present at the scene of the shooting and that his "stalking" of Martin, in the sense you've used the term, was likewise lawful. If Zimmerman's testimony at trial is consistent with his account to the police (as reported in the media), and is accepted by the jury, the non-retreat privilege created by the statute will be available to him.

If the geniuses in the Florida legislature really didn't intend SYG to apply under circumstances like these, they should have enacted a different statute. Or, better yet, not tinkered with the law of self-defense at the behest of their NRA masters.

[Etah dna Evol]

I probably won't bother to post in this thread beyond this quick statement, because it seems most of the people who have posted have made up their mind already and aren't about to change them.

But I want to inject a few facts into this dialog.

• Martin is not from the gated community, he was staying with his fathers girlfriend for the first time ever.


• Martin was wearing clothing that obscured his face.


• Martin was walking between buildings.


• There had been house burglaries in the neighborhood recently.


• Stalking requires a pattern of behavior, which means that Trayvon had no just cause to commit felony battery and yes I do blame the kid. You don’t get to brutalize people you feel are following you. Not the way it works.


• Trayvon Martin is 17 years old, six foot three inches tall and 150 pounds. Not quite the impression the media gave everyone and more than capable of causing harm to Zimmerman.


• Zimmerman is five foot ten inches tall and weighs between 160 and 170 pounds, not two hundred as the media initially reported. Which means it is more than reasonable to believe that Martin had the physical ability to harm Zimmerman.


• Zimmerman is NOT WHITE. He is not Caucasian in the traditional sense. His father is Caucasian (much like Obama's mother), but his mother is Peruvian (from Peru, which is South America), he is obviously brown skinned and he speaks Spanish fluently. By every reasonable definition he is as much of an ethnic minority as Trayvon.


• Zimmerman only mentioned Trayvon’s ethnicity (African American) after the 911 dispatcher prompted him too, unlike the edited video shows that has made its rounds in the media.


• Zimmerman has mentored African American youth and has no known history of racist tendencies.


• Zimmerman has called police 7 times in the past several years, not 40 as the media originally reported.


• Zimmermans firearm was legal. It was a legal concealed carry weapon. Please note that means that the firearm must as all times be concealed and open carry is explicitly illegal.


• Zimmerman’s account has the gun being exposed at his head was bashed into the side walk and Martin trying to grab it. If Zimmerman believed that if he didn’t shoot Martin, Martin would take his weapon and kill him, he would be legally justified in using deadly force.


• There are several 911 calls that place Trayvon on top of and beating Zimmerman, there are no 911 calls that place Zimmerman in the role of the aggressor


• By the time Zimmerman had gotten to the police, he had already been cleaned up by EMT’s. Furthermore clarified tape shows a large gash on the back of his head that seems to confirm the part of his story that places Martin as bashing his head into the sidewalk.


• Blood spatter probably doesn’t work the way you think it works.


• The original DA didn’t fail to press charges because there is some great conspiracy to let a random person murder another random person. But because in Florida the Stand Your Ground Law is not a legal defense, it is an IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION. District Attorneys by and large only press charges when they think they can win a case. Out of nearly 300 cases tried for murder, against people using the immunity contained in the Stand Your Ground Laws as a defense, there have been less than 15 convictions. Given the Beyond a Reasonable Doubt standard for prosecuting someone for murder, and the strength of the Stand Your Ground immunity, it is likely Zimmerman will be found Not Guilty.


• If you believe that this is an open and shut case, then you likely lack basic legal knowledge and have been influenced by the media in some form or fashion.

[Iniquitous]

Ok, so according to your first point Martin did not have a right to be there? Wrong. His father lived in that gated community, which gives him every right to be there and to be able to walk through the community without Barney Fife stalking him. Second, there is nothing illegal about wearing hoodies and if you try to say that gave Zimmerman grounds to immediately target him as a suspect, then you need help. It was raining. Pretty damn good reason to wear a hood if you ask me. Three, is it a crime to walk between buildings? If so, I am breaking the law every time I walk to the mailboxes at the front of the complex.

Now then. Stalking - the kind of stalking you are referring to does require a pattern of behavior. The kind of stalking Zimmerman did is what Kataban posted. Zimmerman made it a point to follow Martin even after being told the police did not need him to. Zimmerman made the choice to ignore what the police dispatcher told him. He made the choice to knowingly and willingly stalk someone he thought was up to no good. In my opinion, that right there removes any right to use Stand Your Ground as a defense against prosecution because it is the very first element of this whole ‘perfect storm’ situation. If he had done what the dispatcher told him instead of rushing out to be Barney Fife none of this would have happened.

Not going to argue race or size differences. I’ve stated before I do not think it was racially motivated but I will point out, you don’t have to be white to be racist so this whole trying to point out he is not Caucasian is ridiculous.

Link your source that says he has only called 7 times.

Not going to argue about the gun. I am a huge believer in owning guns and am working on my own concealed carry permit.

Zimmerman’s account. Let’s just point out the fact that Zimmerman is the only one who can have an account now. The dead cannot tell their side of the story, and as I stated above, Zimmerman has a vested interest in making sure that the story points to him being innocent. Do I trust anything that comes out of Zimmerman’s mouth? No.

There is also 911 calls that experts have analyzed and said it was Martin screaming for help.

I’ll tell you right now, if I am walking home at night and someone is following me that I do not know and I cannot get away from them, I am going to do my damned best to physically harm them. You want to preach that Zimmerman was in fear for his life but did you ever stop to think that Martin knew he was being followed, had tried to get away from his follower and very likely was afraid as well?

All I am going to say about the police department: They left Martin’s body in the morgue for THREE days without notifying his family. You cannot tell me they could not find out who he was because he had a flipping cell phone on him. Simple procedure to check the contacts list to find a family member, find the number of the phone and do a reverse check on it to see who the number belongs to, etc. That right there is sloppy police work. Two, witnesses have stated that the cops corrected THEM when they were giving their statements. That is called tampering with the reports. Their job was to take down the statements of those witnesses as the witnesses described. Not try and correct their stories to match Zimmerman’s.

Zimmerman was carrying a firearm while acting as Neighborhood Watch. Direct violation of how the Neighborhood Watch works.

Zimmerman has had run ins with the law before. Has had reports from others that he has followed them without just cause and has been violent.

Yes, this is an open and shut case. Zimmerman tried to be Barney Fife. He shot and killed someone who would still be alive if Zimmerman didn’t have a hard on for trying to be the law. At the very least this is Manslaughter.

[Callie Del Noire]

• Zimmerman has called police 7 times in the past several years, not 40 as the media originally reported.

He might have called the POLICE directly only 7 times.. but he's on record for something like 40 calls to 9/11 over the last 2 years.

[Oniya]

Because I'm interested - could you link me the bit about others reporting Zimmerman had followed them?  That's a new wrinkle for me. 

[Iniquitous]

I'll try to find the link to the news story again but I do remember it was a guy saying that Zimmerman followed him in a car for some reason or another. Don't remember all the details but I'll see if I can find the link again.

George Zimmerman is notorious for following people, in 2003 he followed a 24-year-old Lake Mary resident who he claimed he seen shoplift a TV. He followed the man in his vehicle until police officials arrived.

A short year later he followed a man who he claimed spat at him, when officials arrived at the scene the man denied spitting at Mr. Zimmerman; however the incident was still reported.

Taken from the link below though plenty of links mention the two incidents. One other site states that the man Zimmerman claimed spit at him told the cops Zimmerman had been tailgating him and irate.

http://www.newspitter.com/2012/03/22/a-closer-look-at-trayvon-martins-shooter-george-zimmerman

[JDrew Spider]

What I don't get is why in the world would you proceed when the operator tells you not to. Now this man got a bounty on his head.

[elone]

No one knows what really occurred. According to Zimmerman, he quit following Travon when asked not to and was returning to his vehicle when he was jumped by Martin.

[Callie Del Noire]

No one knows what really occurred. According to Zimmerman, he quit following Travon when asked not to and was returning to his vehicle when he was jumped by Martin.

Exactly.. He SAID.. Trayvon isn't around to refute it.

[JDrew Spider]

Yea I don't believe that. Some strange man is following asking you "what you're doing here?" and then Martin returns the favor by following him back? I don't think so.

I just got done watching that Rodney King documentary. Hope nothing like that happens.

[Callie Del Noire]

Yea I don't believe that. Some strange man is following asking you "what you're doing here?" and then Martin returns the favor by following him back? I don't think so.

I just got done watching that Rodney King documentary. Hope nothing like that happens.

I don't know if there will be riots in the streets of Sanford if Zimmerman gets off. I know he might want to literally 'vanish' though. I'm sure someone might take a shot at him. Feelings are still running too high.

[Etah dna Evol]

Ok, so according to your first point Martin did not have a right to be there?

He has a right to be there, but he had never been in that neighborhood before so Zimmerman had no way to have any idea who he was. That was my point.

Wrong. His father lived in that gated community, which gives him every right to be there and to be able to walk through the community without Barney Fife stalking him.

Code Select Expand

as the teen was trying to get back to the home of his father’s girlfriend

http://tucsoncitizen.com/usa-today-news/2012/04/14/trayvon-martins-dad-says-he-warned-son/

His father stayed with his girlfriend who lived there on the weekends. Suspended for possession of marijuana, Trayvon was spending his first weekend there ever.

Second, there is nothing illegal about wearing hoodies and if you try to say that gave Zimmerman grounds to immediately target him as a suspect, then you need help. It was raining. Pretty damn good reason to wear a hood if you ask me. Three, is it a crime to walk between buildings? If so, I am breaking the law every time I walk to the mailboxes at the front of the complex.

No, but to any reasonable person the face obscuring clothing and walking between houses is more than enough cause to gain attention. Especially in a community that had recently experienced break-ins.

kind of stalking Zimmerman did is what Kataban posted.

Your arguing semantics. There is no penal code that addresses following someone on a public street, one time.

Zimmerman made it a point to follow Martin even after being told the police did not need him to. Zimmerman made the choice to ignore what the police dispatcher told him.

• #1) a 911 dispatcher is not a peace officer and their word doesn’t carry the weight of the law
• #2) the 911 dispatcher did not say: no don’t follow him. They said: we don’t need you to do that.
• #3) Zimmerman’s account has always been that at that point, he lost sight of Trayvon and returned to his truck.

my opinion, that right there removes any right to use Stand Your Ground as a defense against prosecution

In Florida, Stand Your Ground is not a defense; it’s an immunity from prosecution. You'd know that had you bothered to actually google the text of the law.

you don’t have to be white to be racist so this whole trying to point out he is not Caucasian is ridiculous.

Really. Google the phrase “White Hispanic.” It is a ludicrous term that was created solely to infer racist intentions on Zimmermans part.

There is also 911 calls that experts have analyzed and said it was Martin screaming for help.

Ed Primeau was the first “expert.” I have detailed his “awesome” “technique” below:

Code Select Expand

He listened to the audio tape of the screams and concluded: "I believe that's Trayvon Martin in the background, without a doubt." He said emphatically: "That's a young man screaming."

http://digitaljournal.com/article/322204

I don’t care how much of an expert you claim to be, you can’t tell a scream to a scientific certainty using sound enhancement and listening by ear.

Tom Owens, the second “expert” whose forensic qualifications include a Bachelors in history

http://www.owlinvestigations.com/pdf/TOM_OWEN_Vitae_01_2011.pdf

uses a computer program, that utilizes a technique called voice biometric analysis. Not only is voice biometric analysis itself not proved itself to be scientifically certain, but Tom Owen’s used only Zimmerman’s voice recorded in the 911 call, which is way to small of a voice sample for his program to be accurate.

legalinsurrection.com/2012/04/audio-expert-in-martin-case-demanded-at-least-six-similar-voice-exemplars-in-prior-case/

I’ll tell you right now, if I am walking home at night and someone is following me that I do not know and I cannot get away from them, I am going to do my damned best to physically harm them.

If someone was following you, on a public street, you would commit felony battery? This is the millionth time I have heard this sentiment expressed, but I cannot pin down its logical justification. Additionally, even if we assume that it is OK to beat people who follow us, half to death, how do you figure out the difference between someone is following you and someone merely walking behind you?

Zimmerman has had run ins with the law before.

Don’t we all?

Has had reports from others that he has followed them without just cause and has been violent.

I would like a source for this claim. I have tried to find it myself, and have been unsuccessful.

He might have called the POLICE directly only 7 times.. but he's on record for something like 40 calls to 9/11 over the last 2 years.

No. It's seven times in the last 6 months, some to 911 and some to the polices none emergency line. The total number is 46 in the last eight years. That breaks down to about one call every two months.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/23/did-trayvon-shooter-abuse-911.html[/list]

[elone]

Yea I don't believe that. Some strange man is following asking you "what you're doing here?" and then Martin returns the favor by following him back? I don't think so.

Where do you get the idea that Martin followed him back? There seems to be a lot of conjecture here about what occurred without looking at other possible scenarios that could be just as likely but not as popular.

Perhaps Zimmerman is telling the truth, Trayvon, according to his girlfriend, answered "Why are you following me?" Then the phone went dead. She said it was probably because he was pushed. Absolutely no evidence of that. It could be that Trayvon, in anticipation of attacking Zimmerman turned off his phone and took off his headset. The point is, we don't know and that is why there will be a hearing to determine the facts, if that is even possible.

And Callie, what possible justice would be served by someone taking a shot at Zimmerman. "Feelings are still running too high." Is that some sort of excuse for an execution of a man who is presumably innocent until proven guilty? Even if he is found completely innocent of the second degree murder charge his life is already ruined. Yes, he is still alive and Trayvon is not. But try to think for a minute that there is a possibility that Zimmerman acted in self defense and was afraid that Trayvon was going for his gun. If that were the case would you still be so intent on seeing him put in prison for the rest of his life? I don't really want to defend Zimmerman, I think he is probably a wanna be cop and a jerk, but that does not make him a murderer of preclude him from having a fair trial.

Personally, I prefer to wait for the testimony and facts to come out. Until then, everything is just irrational and based more on knee jerk reaction than reality. Also, if people want to riot because they do not get the verdict that they want, what does that say for the relevance of our  system of laws and courts.

[Oniya]

I would like a source for this claim. I have tried to find it myself, and have been unsuccessful.

Iniquitous Opheliac provided a link at the top of this page of responses:

I'll try to find the link to the news story again but I do remember it was a guy saying that Zimmerman followed him in a car for some reason or another. Don't remember all the details but I'll see if I can find the link again.


Taken from the link below though plenty of links mention the two incidents. One other site states that the man Zimmerman claimed spit at him told the cops Zimmerman had been tailgating him and irate.

http://www.newspitter.com/2012/03/22/a-closer-look-at-trayvon-martins-shooter-george-zimmerman

[Iniquitous]

Your arguing semantics. There is no penal code that addresses following someone on a public street, one time.
Quote
Zimmerman made it a point to follow Martin even after being told the police did not need him to. Zimmerman made the choice to ignore what the police dispatcher told him.


#1) a 911 dispatcher is not a peace officer and their word doesn’t carry the weight of the law
#2) the 911 dispatcher did not say: no don’t follow him. They said: we don’t need you to do that.
#3) Zimmerman’s account has always been that at that point, he lost sight of Trayvon and returned to his truck.

Now you are the one arguing semantics. The dispatcher made it clear with the "we don't need you to do that" that Zimmerman needed to stop what he was doing. No, dispatchers are not police officers. However, they speak for the police officers and Zimmerman should have stopped what he was doing right then.

But then again, considering he had a history of following people he thought guilty of crimes.... well, we know why he didn't.

Really. Google the phrase “White Hispanic.” It is a ludicrous term that was created solely to infer racist intentions on Zimmermans part.

The point was, it is entirely possible to have a racist hispanic or a racist black. It is not something restricted solely to the white race. Thus, this arguing over whether Zimmerman is white or not  to try and remove any chance of him being racist is pointless. White, black or hispanic - makes no difference. Racism is not defined by the color of the skin, it is defined by the actions and beliefs of the person.

Also - what color do you call someone from China? India? South America? South Africa? White or black describes the color of the skin. Not that ethnicity. My point stands.

[Etah dna Evol]

Now you are the one arguing semantics.

When one is arguing semantics, they are arguing about the wording of a statement of phrase, whose intent is clear. "Do not follow him" and "We don't need you to follow him," are very different sentences and the meaning of the latter is vague. 'We don't need you to do x' implies that it is OK and that it might even be helpful.

No, dispatchers are not police officers. However, they speak for the police officers and Zimmerman should have stopped what he was doing right then.

According to his story, which has not to my knowledge changed, at that point he returned to his truck.

The point was, it is entirely possible to have a racist hispanic or a racist black.

That is true, but why were they trying so hard to make him white? Why did the black panthers put an award on his head? This rush to judgement was predicated on an upper middle class white person shooting down an innocent young black kid.

Thus, this arguing over whether Zimmerman is white or not  to try and remove any chance of him being racist is pointless.

No its not. People are using this issue and its out of context racial implications to prove that things like this are going on all over the country and that white racism is running rampant. Do you think people were grousing about Hispanic racism during all the Trayvon marches? Do you think Al Sharpton is involved to oppose the evils of Hispanic racism?

My point stands.

If you say so. The problem with not being very informed in the first place and then rushing to judgement based on news articles that pop up when you check your email and what those moving picture stories tell you on the magic color box, is that you never or rarely process new information. So you'll stick to your guns as hard as you can despite emerging information and then you make grandiose statements like "my point stands," when you don't even seem to be clear what they are arguing.  This is what makes people gullible to the media and to facebook pictures.

[Trieste]

Ahkay, that's about enough of that until a cooldown period has passed. Thread will be unlocked in 24 hours.

[Trieste]

Unlocked. A few reminders:

* Watch the sarcasm. It's getting out of hand.
* People can disagree with you without being The Enemy.
* If you're getting upset or frustrated, step away and take a deep breath before responding.

Thank you.

[SRT4NightRider]

My job, we've had a full out debate about this topic. I personally, workin in a legal office, feel that until we see proof EITHER WAY, we can not come to a conclusion

[Callie Del Noire]

My job, we've had a full out debate about this topic. I personally, workin in a legal office, feel that until we see proof EITHER WAY, we can not come to a conclusion

Agreed. I personally don't feel that he QUITE meets the definition of 'Stand Your Ground' and that he should face trial. I wonder how they are going to find an unbiased jury in the state of Florida though.

[MercyfulFate]

I've discussed this topic a hundred times, so I'm just going to condense what I think.

1. Zimmerman being convicted is going to come down to who attacked who first, but even under the SYG law, it has to meet grievous bodily harm or death for deadly force to be relevant.

2. I think SYG is being horribly mis-applied, Brandon Baker's case is almost as bad.

3. The law needs to be re-written if it's being applied differently to different cases.

[Oniya]

Just heard on HLN that the gunshot pattern on TM was of 'intermediate distance, about 5 feet'.  Mike Brooks says that's a bit vague, and would prefer seeing a comparison of patterns to confirm.

So would I. 

[MercyfulFate]

Just heard on HLN that the gunshot pattern on TM was of 'intermediate distance, about 5 feet'.  Mike Brooks says that's a bit vague, and would prefer seeing a comparison of patterns to confirm.

So would I.

Trayvon apparently had injured knuckles according to the news, but it still doesn't mean much.

[Oniya]

You can injure knuckles many ways - I'd have to see injuries in order to make a guess (abrasion from landing on concrete? laceration from GZ's teeth? something unrelated?).  GSR only comes from firearms.

[MercyfulFate]

Yeah, and they could be from self defense as well. Same as Zimmerman's head injuries could be self-inflicted.

Regardless of what happens, Stand Your Ground should be reviewed. I have a serious issue with anyone being able to follow someone, attack/get attacked and then kill the other. The act of following someone alone and setting up a confrontation by not leaving when you could leave, is a big problem.

I'm a gun owner, and in my state if you're outside of your home and someone comes after you, you have a duty to retreat if safe to do so. You can be prosecuted even if you do everything right though.

So you've got "Defend yourself for real, possibly go to jail" and "Defend yourself when you had the ability to leave, and don't go to jail". There has to be something better.

[Callie Del Noire]

The other case in Florida, where the abused spouse went to jail for discharging it but not shooting her husband. He was on the new and said that the abuse charges were overhyped and that he never threatened her. Pissed me off to see this guy on the news lying about it as smoothly as he was.

[MercyfulFate]

The other case in Florida, where the abused spouse went to jail for discharging it but not shooting her husband. He was on the new and said that the abuse charges were overhyped and that he never threatened her. Pissed me off to see this guy on the news lying about it as smoothly as he was.

Yeah, he lied and admitted it didn't he? She didn't even shoot him, yet she could get 20 years? What a backwards system that is.

What's sad is, had she killed him, she may not be seeing jail time. Then again, she's black so it probably wouldn't have mattered.

Look up the case of Brandon Baker too, another Florida SYG case. Off duty security guard (and war vet) follows him because he's driving erratically. They stop, Baker approaches his car "aggressively" and gets pepper sprayed.

Then Baker tries to punch him and gets shot. Guy who shot him is off the hook.

[Oniya]

Yeah, and they could be from self defense as well. Same as Zimmerman's head injuries could be self-inflicted.

Regardless of what happens, Stand Your Ground should be reviewed. I have a serious issue with anyone being able to follow someone, attack/get attacked and then kill the other. The act of following someone alone and setting up a confrontation by not leaving when you could leave, is a big problem.

I'm a gun owner, and in my state if you're outside of your home and someone comes after you, you have a duty to retreat if safe to do so. You can be prosecuted even if you do everything right though.

So you've got "Defend yourself for real, possibly go to jail" and "Defend yourself when you had the ability to leave, and don't go to jail". There has to be something better.

Pretty much on the same page with you here.  I'm going to be following the case as much as I can.

[elone]

Just heard on HLN that the gunshot pattern on TM was of 'intermediate distance, about 5 feet'.  Mike Brooks says that's a bit vague, and would prefer seeing a comparison of patterns to confirm.

So would I.

There would be no powder tattoo at five foot range. the marks on Trayvon indicated a mark of approximately 2 inches in diameter according to the autopsy report that I just read. Here is a study:

http://library-resources.cqu.edu.au/JFS/PDF/vol_21/iss_2/JFS212760367.pdf

A 2 inch marking would indicate a range of less than 6 inches. The only definitive way to know is to use the same gun and ammunition on a live target. Apparently paper or dead animals do not give the same results. Also, if the gun were in direct contact there would be burning present. Hopefully there were photographs taken with a ruler over the wound. Different people also apparently measure differently, some taking into consideration every stray piece of powder, some the main markings.

At any rate, 5 foot is totally unrealistic.

Update from The Washington Post 5/18/12

"A lab report, based on an examination of the two sweatshirts Martin was wearing, found holes and gunshot residue consistent with a “contact shot,” meaning the gun was pressed against Martin’s chest. An autopsy report said that the gunshot wound indicated he was shot from an “intermediate range,” which experts say is between one and 18 inches away."

[Oniya]

That's why  I have such an issue with vague terms like 'intermediate' range.  I'd be calling 1'-18" between point-blank range and close range.

[elone]

I'm with you Oniya. I would certainly call 1 - 18 inches point blank, but apparently that term is not used. When I saw the reference to 5 foot as intermediate range and a powder burn of 2 inches I decided to do a little research. Having a basic familiarity with firearms, that did not add up to me.

When reporters make statements without doing their homework it only exacerbates problems for people trying to understand the story. I suppose a lot of people will be dissatisfied with this case no matter what the outcome. I think the media has done a great disservice to justice in their reporting of less than factual statements for no other reason than sensationalism, as has the state of Florida with their laws. It seems to me that releasing all this information before a trial only makes it more difficult to find an untainted jury.

It will ultimately come down to whether a jury, if it gets to one, believes that Zimmerman acted in self defense, believing that Trayvon might take his weapon in the scuffle, or if Zimmerman instigated the confrontation physically and provoked an assault. The only person that really knows what happened is Zimmerman.

[Exelion]

Have to agree with elone, but from the evidence we've seen thus far this is what I think happened.

Zimmerman was convinced Martin was up to no good. Confronted him. The two argued. Zimmerman made some derogatory comment or threat. Martin jumped him in anger. Zimmerman, already in a heightened state of panic because he thought Martin was a threat, reacted with a gunshot.

There's two big mistakes made here.

1. Zimmerman should have done as was instructed and stayed away from the kid unless he caught him actually committing an illegal act.
2. The first response to a physical assault should never be a fatal gunshot. Just brandishing the gun alone might have been enough of a deterrent.

That said, I do think Zimmerman acted improperly, and the killing of Trayvon Martin was in fact unlawful. However, I do NOT believe this was a racially motivated, intentional murder. I think ZImmerman was a bigoted idiot who let his fear cause him to act rashly. Negligent homicide? Sure. Manslaughter? Sure. Murder 1? Nope. I firmly believe he at no time had any intent to kill Martin.

[elone]

Not real sure what evidence there is to support your opinion of the events. I have to wonder why you automatically assume that Zimmerman made a derogatory comment since you later state you do not believe it was racially motivated. I don't think he was in a state of panic. There was certainly no indication of panic in the call he made to the police to report Trayvon. Judging from the injuries to Zimmerman it is entirely possible that he feared losing his weapon to Trayvon. Had that happened and Trayvon shot Zimmerman, where would we be now?

Two big mistakes:
1. Zimmerman says he did do as instructed and was returning to his vehicle, and if he had caught him committing an illegal act he should never intervene, but wait for the police.
2.  Brandishing a firearm is a crime in many jurisdictions, not sure about Florida, but I would guess it is.

[shooter6806]

The fact is that we don't know enough to judge.  I have a bit of experience in this area.  I only have the news reports to form an opinion, and they aren't enough for a final judgement.   My take so far:

1.  Zimmerman was the head of the local neighborhood watch, and in my opinion, he took his job too seriously.  His job was to watch, not to intervene.  He should have stayed in his car.

2.  Martin fit the description of a known burglar and home invader in that area.  Not his fault, but when you dress like a banger, you'll be treated like a banger.

3.  The physical evidence released so far indicates that Martin and Zimmerman had a physical altercation, that Martin broke Zimmerman's nose and knocked him to the ground, and that Zimmerman shot Martin at extremely close range. 

4.  The "Stand Your Ground" law is irrelevant in this case. 

This incident has been totally blown out of proportion by the media and by pundits on both sides of the issue.  It will be next to impossible for Zimmerman to get a fair trial, and the threats of violence by the New Black Panthers do nothing but inflame the issue further.

Everyone needs to step back, take a deep breath, and let the criminal justice system work.

Just my $0.02.

[Maiz]

Trayvon Martin was wearing what kids wear. He was a kid. Don't blame what he was wearing because it gave Zimmerman no right to do what he did, just because he was wearing a hoodie.

Also the criminal justice system is so flawed, that it's laughable that someone thinks it works. This system is inherently racist and look at the fight it took to get Zimmerman even looked at for murder.

[Exelion]

Not real sure what evidence there is to support your opinion of the events. I have to wonder why you automatically assume that Zimmerman made a derogatory comment since you later state you do not believe it was racially motivated. I don't think he was in a state of panic. There was certainly no indication of panic in the call he made to the police to report Trayvon. Judging from the injuries to Zimmerman it is entirely possible that he feared losing his weapon to Trayvon. Had that happened and Trayvon shot Zimmerman, where would we be now?

Two big mistakes:
1. Zimmerman says he did do as instructed and was returning to his vehicle, and if he had caught him committing an illegal act he should never intervene, but wait for the police.
2.  Brandishing a firearm is a crime in many jurisdictions, not sure about Florida, but I would guess it is.

The derogatory comment part is a guess. And keep in mind that doesn't mean "racist comment" it means insulting.

We known Zimmerman was told to wait, and refused.
We know Zimmerman had a history of profiling young black males.

Whether Zimmerman returned to his vehicle or not, he should have never approached the boy in the first place. Yeah, Martin acted in the wrong. He assaulted someone. We don't know with what provocation. But the fact remains that the only reason Martin was shot, in the end, is because Zimmerman went after him when he should not have. Therefore Zimmerman is in my eyes criminally culpable. I don't entirely blame him for shooting, fear makes you react. But he should never have antagonized Martin in the first place.

I think he acted in self-defense, but I also think he has a share of guilt for starting the situation when he was TOLD by law enforcement not to.