17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #32

[Dr.Fessel]

Just because you call the fire department doesn't mean you can't use your own hose to put out the fire until they get there, even if they tell you to to not do it.

What do you think the address was he went to get?

 

[Beyond Belief]

Thanks jjenny, that was worth listening too.

 

[MaryAnn]

How could she know when a random person took that picture? It was not an LE photo. Unless that random person actually hands the picture to LE, they are not going to know about it, and neither is Corey. Good Lord, now LE and the prosecution are expected to be psychic and know when random people take pictures? And I bet anything that person went straight to ABC and did not tell LE or Corey anything about this picture. Dershowitz doesn't know what he's talking about here. I love how people like him stick issues into things that don't have issues. Good grief!

How do we even know it wasn't photoshopped? What's weird is the blood starts where the cap ends. If GZ was really in a scuffle with his head being slammed on the concrete how did his hat stay on? That would have been the first thing to fly off.

I myself think the pic is fake! Just like the Caylee pic used in a trial of Caylee opening the sliding glass door. that was so fake it wasn't even funny! I can't believe what they get away with in Fl.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

I believe it was the chief who said their dispatch personnel have to word it that way, instead of an order, because of lawsuits. Evidentally someone may have been injured because they were told to stay where they were and sued. Have to see if I can find it. jmo

BBM - that's what I thought.
Not an order.

 

[m00c0w]

I don't think it's that uncommon. Walking in the ceremony only matters to Mom and Dad. It doesn't give you a diploma and it certainly doesn't put a degree on your transcript, which is where degrees are verified.

It strikes me as far from special treatment. Generally you pay for graduation and stuff at the beginning half of the semester, when it looks like you're going to graduate. If you fail a class, for instance, and get permission, you can walk at that graduation and just retake the class the next semester. The graduation ceremony and actual graduation are two separate events. My cousin was graduating with her AA degree and fell a class shy because she failed it and still walked with everyone else. My ex-fiancée was offered the ability to walk at the spring semester graduation and complete her course load in the summer. She just completed it in the fall semester and walked with the winter graduation. The same has happened with some of my friends. It's not uncommon for this to happen with an individual in that situation.

 

[Aedrys]

Just because you call the fire department doesn't mean you can't use your own hose to put out the fire until they get there, even if they tell you to to not do it.

That is totally different. That is immediate danger of the fire spreading and people or other homes actually getting hurt. All Trayvon was doing was walking home. That does not call for the same reaction as when a fire is burning a home.

 

[ggg]

George Zimmerman: Prelude to a shooting

A pit bull named Big Boi began menacing George and Shellie Zimmerman in the fall of 2009.

The first time the dog ran free and cornered Shellie in their gated community in Sanford, Florida, George called the owner to complain. The second time, Big Boi frightened his mother-in-law's dog. Zimmerman called Seminole County Animal Services and bought pepper spray. The third time he saw the dog on the loose, he called again. An officer came to the house, county records show.





"Don't use pepper spray," he told the Zimmermans, according to a friend. "It'll take two or three seconds to take effect, but a quarter second for the dog to jump you," he said.

"Get a gun."

That November, the Zimmermans completed firearms training at a local lodge and received concealed-weapons gun permits.


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nation...shooting_KnrkzId9fbXMspvRx3Q4hJ#ixzz1t6AJSuzS

 

[Ninety5rpm]

If someone did all of what you suggested to me, I would be in fear of my life. That person would seem very aggressive towards me. Maybe it's a man/woman thing, but as a woman, I would be terrified if someone thought I was suspicious, got out of their vehicle, followed me, and then approached me. If I was a kid, that would be terrifying and aggressive to me too. I'd be screaming "stranger danger" or at my age now, screaming for help. I don't see how those actions are not aggressive. Body language and action (getting out a car, following, etc) can be aggressive, not just pulling a gun on someone or attacking someone.

Maybe so, but that terror would not legally justify you to use any kind of force against the person following you.

Let's not conflate anything that feels aggressive (which is not relevant to the question of whether GZ was acting lawfully) with what the law recognizes as aggression that justifies self-defense (which is relevant to that issue).

 

[m00c0w]

George Zimmerman: Prelude to a shooting

A pit bull named Big Boi began menacing George and Shellie Zimmerman in the fall of 2009.

The first time the dog ran free and cornered Shellie in their gated community in Sanford, Florida, George called the owner to complain. The second time, Big Boi frightened his mother-in-law's dog. Zimmerman called Seminole County Animal Services and bought pepper spray. The third time he saw the dog on the loose, he called again. An officer came to the house, county records show.





"Don't use pepper spray," he told the Zimmermans, according to a friend. "It'll take two or three seconds to take effect, but a quarter second for the dog to jump you," he said.

"Get a gun."

That November, the Zimmermans completed firearms training at a local lodge and received concealed-weapons gun permits.


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nation...shooting_KnrkzId9fbXMspvRx3Q4hJ#ixzz1t6AJSuzS

There goes the theory that he just got his gun and permit and was itching to use it.

 

[Sensei]

Finding someone to be suspicious for dubious reasons is not being an aggressor.
Getting out of your vehicle to follow someone is not being an aggressor.
Following someone despite a police dispatcher saying that's not needed, is not being an aggressor.
Approaching someone is not being an aggressor.
If all GZ did was follow TM, then TM did not have the right to punch him. I'm pretty sure the laws against battery don't have exceptions for people being followed. If TM did have such a right, then Hollywood stars would have free reign on the paparazzi, LOL.

1) If GZ approached TM and pulled out his gun when he approached, that would be being an aggressor.

2) If TM approached GZ, and GZ responded (right away or after some words were exchanged) with a punch or pulling out his gun, then GZ would be the aggressor.

3) If TM approached GZ, words were exchanged, and TM threw the first punch, then TM would be the aggressor.

As far as I can tell, we don't know which of these three scenarios occurred.

I beg to differ with you....If I am walking at night on an empty street and someone that I don't know begins to follow me, and I speed up and duck around a corner in an attempt to lose them, and then find out they have cut through an alley and they are behind me again I WOULD interpret that as AGGRESSION and I think most people would as well.

I would be in fear for my own safety, and I would most likely try my happy darndest to take out their kneecaps if they got too close, I would NOT feel that I was required to wait until they put their hands on me first.

Trayvon knew that the person following him was not the papparatzi, he was not famous, he didn't think this person was police, they had no uniform and did not identify themselves, the only thing he could possibly think was that this stranger who was following him did not mean to give him the readers digest millions, but that he meant him harm and as it turns out he was entirely correct.

 

[Aedrys]

Maybe so, but that terror would not legally justify you to use any kind of force against the person following you.

Let's not conflate anything that feels aggressive (which is not relevant to the question of whether GZ was acting lawfully) with what the law recognizes as aggression that justifies self-defense (which is relevant to that issue).

So I am supposed to let them do all of that and hurt me, and then I'm justifiied in defending myself? I don't think so. I'd probably run away more than throw a punch, but that just doesn't sound right to me. I'm not going to wait to see what the person does and then decide to defend myself. If I perceive them being aggressive, I'm going to run and not let them touch me, which is probably what Trayvon tried to do.

 

[LambChop]

I agree with your conclusions. However, he *could* say he was following Trayvon in order to be able to tell police his location so they could check him out.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

But GZ ended up shooting TM and this is why LE does not want civilians getting involved. Plus GZ had a gun and was not only a danger to himself but everyone around him including LE. Once GZ called LE he lost control of the report. It was LE's duty not GZ to track TM down and question him. People just cannot take matters into their own hands because this is a perfect example of what will happen. First and formost GZ never considered the people within those homes had he lost control of his gun and in a struggle it went off and kill an innocent person. That is depraved indifference. GZ actually created the risk that caused someone to die. jmo

 

[m00c0w]

So I am supposed to let them do all of that and hurt me, and then I'm justifiied in defending myself? I don't think so. I'd probably run away more than throw a punch, but that just doesn't sound right to me. I'm not going to wait to see what the person does and then decide to defend myself. If I perceive them being aggressive, I'm going to run and not let them touch me, which is probably what Trayvon tried to do.

You are not covered under self defense law if you use force that is disproportional to force used against you. If you punch someone because they are walking near you, as menacingly as you may find them, that doesn't entitle you to commit simple or aggravated battery on them. It's that simple. You have the ability to run away if you perceive them as threatening, but they haven't done anything that is an articulable, physical threat.

 

[Karmady]

There goes the theory that he just got his gun and permit and was itching to use it.

And also that it was even his idea to do so in the first place. His first thought was pepper spray, even for an pit bull.

 

[Aedrys]

But GZ ended up shooting TM and this is why LE does not want civilians getting involved. Plus GZ had a gun and was not only a danger to himself but everyone around him including LE. Once GZ called LE he lost control of the report. It was LE's duty not GZ to track TM down and question him. People just cannot take matters into their own hands because this is a perfect example of what will happen. First and formost GZ never considered the people within those homes had he lost control of his gun and in a struggle it went off and kill an innocent person. That is depraved indifference. GZ actually created the risk that caused someone to die. jmo

No kidding. He seems to think someone suspicious is immediate danger and needs to be dealt with. A house burning down is immediate danger. Someone walking on the street is not.

 

[m00c0w]

I beg to differ with you....If I am walking at night on an empty street and someone that I don't know begins to follow me, and I speed up and duck around a corner in an attempt to lose them, and then find out they have cut through an alley and they are behind me again I WOULD interpret that as AGGRESSION and I think most people would as well.

I would be in fear for my own safety, and I would most likely try my happy darndest to take out their kneecaps if they got too close, I would NOT feel that I was required to wait until they put their hands on me first.

Trayvon knew that the person following him was not the papparatzi, he was not famous, he didn't think this person was police, they had no uniform and did not identify themselves, the only thing he could possibly think was that this stranger who was following him did not mean to give him the readers digest millions, but that he meant him harm and as it turns out he was entirely correct.

BBM

And I would prepare yourself for (at least) simple battery charges to be filed against you because you struck a civilian carrying out a lawful activity in a lawful place. Walking near you is not a crime, nor something that would justify a use of force.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

So I am supposed to let them do all of that and hurt me, and then I'm justifiied in defending myself? I don't think so. I'd probably run away more than throw a punch, but that just doesn't sound right to me. I'm not going to wait to see what the person does and then decide to defend myself. If I perceive them being aggressive, I'm going to run and not let them touch me, which is probably what Trayvon tried to do.

No, you wait until they cross the line, but before they hurt you.

As far as I know, merely following you is not crossing the line... it does not justify using self-defense, unless they follow you onto your property (that's not the only way to cross the line - the line can be cross verbally too).

 

[Ninety5rpm]

And funny how a few of the posters here seem to think ignoring common sense and shooting someone is okay because dispatch is not legal authority. Heaven forbid GZ had listened and not pursued Trayvon!

The question is not about what behavior is "okay".
The question is about what behavior is lawful.

 

[LambChop]

Maybe so, but that terror would not legally justify you to use any kind of force against the person following you.

Let's not conflate anything that feels aggressive (which is not relevant to the question of whether GZ was acting lawfully) with what the law recognizes as aggression that justifies self-defense (which is relevant to that issue).

Ahhh, but why wouldn't it. TM was on his own ground. He was headed home. GZ was not. He was actively seeking TM out and for what purpose? If GZ knew TM was up to no good and headed for the back gate why wasn't GZ waiting for TM there. Why, when that seems the most logical place a thief trying to get away would head. GZ said so himself. They escape out the back gate. So GZ was not on his own ground he did not live in that section and his intent was to follow. TM's intent clearly was to get home to watch the game. If TM felt threatened and GZ tried to stop him from leaving then TM was within his rights to resist and do whatever he had to to protect himself. We have no proof it happened this way but statements from the investigator are leaning away from GZ and more towards TM was just trying to get home. jmo

 

[m00c0w]

No, you wait until they cross the line, but before they hurt you.

As far as I know, merely following you is not crossing the line... it does not justify using self-defense, unless they follow you onto your property (that's not the only way to cross the line - the line can be cross verbally too).

It does not. They can verbally threaten you, grab you, attempt to grab you, act like they're going to hit you, draw back like they're going to hit you... Anything that could be classified as "assault" or an articulable threat to your safety (Yelling, "I'm gonna kill you", for instance) would allow you to claim self defense and use reasonable force to stop the threat. Even then, there's a line. You can only use enough force to mitigate the threat/risk. If you kick them in the crotch, and they go to the ground, you can't keep wailing away on them.