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

[grammieto5]

Does anyone else wonder if GZ and his attorney will use the SYG law as their defense? I've done alot of reading about this law, I understand more then when this case started, I have not seen any true evidence in favor of GZ. I'm thinking the only true evidence will be from Trayvon's autoposy, unless there was evidence taken at the crime scene, but it appears as though LE believed there was no crime committed, so why would they take evidence.

 

[HiHater]

I would call GZ considerably smaller than Trayvon. Did you see him in court? He's a little man. I would guess 160, 5'7". Trayvon is 160, 6+ feet tall.

Why would you guess his weight and height, when there are official documents that contain it? :waitasec:

 

[Kimster]

This is not a warning to one poster, but to many:

I am on duty (off and on) during the day today and I will NOT put up with the personal jabs like the mods did yesterday. If you guys want to get personal with each other, expect a time out because it will happen. I am not here to edit and remove posts. :saber:

Everyone has now been forewarned. Continue on and play nice!

 

[Adrienne37]

And weren't all of his family and friends talking about how much weight he had lost from all this stress he's under? What he looked like in that oversized suit in court means nothing.

GZ was plenty muscular looking in the jail video, and he isn't all that much shorter that Trayvon was.

JMHO

Yes indeed. Every single one of them that has been interviewed has talked about how much weight he's lost. He reminded me of a clown at a circus in that ridiculously oversized suit that he had on at the bond hearing with the shackles around his waist. That was very impressive Mr. O'Mara.


~jmo~

 

[grammieto5]

I just listened to the interview with Brandi Green, she did not know of any crimes committed where she lived, she has lived in her home for 4 years. Does anyone know how far away she lived from GZ? I wonder where all the crimes were happening when GZ made all his 911 calls? Does anyone know how long GZ lived in his home?

 

[MaryAnn]

What if, as you stopped to watch them, they became agitated and clearly tried to get away from your view? Would you consider that suspicious?

No, if they were breaking into someone's window or trying to break into someone's car or home then yes. I would go inside and call 911. I would not take it upon myself to go after the person unless I saw a child in harms way. I would intervene then!!

 

[ThoughtFox]

What if, as you stopped to watch them, they became agitated and clearly tried to get away from your view? Would you consider that suspicious?

Hypotheticals aside (since Trayvon wasn't shot in a cul-de-sac anyway), I think George was the one acting suspicious.

Trayvon told his girlfriend that some strange guy was following him and she encouraged him to run. We also have the 911 transcript with the guy telling George that he didn't need to follow the boy, and know that George was armed while Trayvon wasn't. Also, and obviously, Trayvon wasn't breaking any laws.

It's only common sense that Trayvon was more worried than George was in the first place, and that George started the whole thing. JMOO

Of course, Florida has a tendency to pick juries without common sense, but that's out of our control.

 

[LynnM]

His defense is simply going to be that he was attacked by simply asking him 'what are you doing here'. TM's movements are relevant, because it goes to show if TM really was 'in fear' of GZ when GZ confronted him. Nobody anywhere has any proof of who started the physical confrontation.

It seems to me that TM couldn't do anything right. I've read comments where people say that he made himself suspicious by running and others that said he should have run all the way home and then he'd have been alive today. I agree with Dr. Fessel, he is not on trial and he can't tell us what he was thinking because he's dead. We can only go by what is reasonable. It's reasonable for TM to think he's in danger, as indeed he was, since he was followed by a person who wasn't law enforcement or security and didn't identify himself. But fear doesn't come all at once. Things happen to make you uneasy, but then sometimes you dismiss them as not being what you thought they were. I can see TM being concerned then deciding there was nothing more to worry about and slowing down to talk to his friend before going in. Teenagers don't like to look foolish or childish or fearful. (I'll just walk fast sounds so much like a teen to me). But once GZ appeared before him again he says to his friend "He's right behind me again." and that's when I think he was genuinely afraid, not worried or anxious.

As far as TM's actions between the time that GZ hung up and the confrontation started, we do know one thing and that is that he was talking on the phone. As I've said before, it's a little hard to sneak up on someone you are hoping to 'sucker punch' if you are chatting away.

 

[Sensei]

His defense is simply going to be that he was attacked by simply asking him 'what are you doing here'. TM's movements are relevant, because it goes to show if TM really was 'in fear' of GZ when GZ confronted him. Nobody anywhere has any proof of who started the physical confrontation.

You are entirely missing the point.

he told dispatch that he had stopped following Trayvon at 2:26

his story is that he walked an additional 80 feet, but to be generous lets call it 160 feet to his destination and back...

The average walking speed for an elderly person is 3.89 feet per second on average so we will round that up to 4 feet per second.

Now divide 4 feet per second into the 160 feet that he walked....

that gives you 40, so that's 40 seconds walking, give him to be generous, a full minute to actually get pen and paper or whatever and get an address.... Okay, 2:26 starting point plus 1:40 travel time to reach the spot that he claims he was attacked and you find that he would have still been on the phone with LE dispatch at the time that he claims to have been attacked by Travyon. 2:26 and 1:40 equals 4:06 and that is being far too generous with the time of travel and linger to get the address time and still it works out that
He was still on the call to dispatch at 4:07

By his own story..GZ was on the phone with dispatch when Trayvon attacked him....

 

[Adrienne37]

I just listened to the interview with Brandi Green, she did not know of any crimes committed where she lived, she has lived in her home for 4 years. Does anyone know how far away she lived from GZ? I wonder where all the crimes were happening when GZ made all his 911 calls? Does anyone know how long GZ lived in his home?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...eading-to-the-shooting-of-trayvon-martin.html

Zimmerman had lived there since 2009 I believe.



~jmo~

 

[csziggy]

IMO and only MO, if GZ acted within the law then this is a monsterously bad law...it offends common sense and ethics. If you are allowed to create a situation which then allows you to kill an innocent and not complicit party to the situation that you created and claim that it was unavoidable self defense then yes that is in fact a very slippery slope but not in the way that you mean it....it means that nobody is safe, it is exactly as Chris Texas previously stated a leave no witness law....as long as the other person is dead you will be ok just say it was Self Defense, and if it takes pressure from outside groups and civil disobedience to get the lawmakers to forego the money prestige and other enticements of the gun lobbyists then so be it.

Even if he is covered under a monstrosity of a law, he is no pure and untainted innocent who is wrongfully convicted...he made his choices and they were BAD...and to let him walk will only entice him and others to make the same bad choices with no consequences. IMO JMHO and stuff.

BBM

Your bolded statement is not just your opinion - I fully agree with it. And that is why I hope this case forces goes to trial. If it takes public pressure to get it there, so be it.

IMO this law needs to be tested in the courts. IANAL but in my heart I feel as though this law goes against our constitution.

If GZ is found guilty, I suspect that his defense team will appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court which I think would be a good thing.

If GZ is let off with SYG immunity or if he is found innocent, I suspect that public pressure will force repeal of the law.

Either way, I hope this law does not stay in effect anywhere in the country. Florida was just one of the earlier ones to pass this version of SYG - over two dozen other states have passed ones since 2005. Some states which were considering passing it have backed off for now. States which have laws based on similar language are reviewing them and considering changing them.

To me this part of the process is all good. The public did not realize how spectacularly bad these laws were - now they know. If most of the people do not want these laws, hopefully their elected representatives will pay attention and get rid of them if the courts do not.

IMO, JMO, etc.

 

[luvmygarden]

I doubt TM would have run from a police car or officer in uniform that night. I think GZ was driving slowly following Trayvon first in his car. It was not marked as LE, he wasn't dressed as LE, he a was stranger, following TM in the dark. The same scenario would scare any of us if it happened just that way. Most forget that TM was a kid, just 2 weeks past his 16th birthday, which might have played a part. I do think though that when he told his gf about it and conveyed his fear, she told him to RUN! I think that is when he ran and GZ noted that he ran, then he stopped running, and said he would walk fast as he might have at that moment felt foolish for running. If he had continued to run till he reached his destination he might have lost GZ and been alive today. moo

I agree. I don't believe TM had a clue he was in danger at first. But when GZ wouldn't stop eyeing him he felt threatened. As a person walking in a townhome subdivision that is gated we might feel less threatened at first.
GZ wanted and did put some fear in TM and I really don't believe GZ can have a SYG theory to fall back on being he became a perp IMO.
That type of action that we see with GZ I feel could be considered stalking.
Wow this case can make me suspicious of people walking down my street in a quiet suburb and call the police on all of them.
One of the reports I listened to the operator almost sounded like she was snickering maybe from answering so many calls from same guy. GZ proceeded to say get someone out here and He suggested how it should be handled. OMGosh GZ is really goofy. IMO

 

[impatientredhead]

It's relevant if we're talking about if TM really was in 'fear' of GZ and how can we prove that he was. And so take it a step foward, if TM really wasn't in 'fear' of GZ and it's somehow proven that TM started the physical confrontation, then how would that play into the SYG law?

I just lost my post, sorry if this duplicates I will delete one.

SYG makes no reference or requirement WHATSOEVER to the deceased/victims fear or any other emotion. It only requires that GZ not be in the commission of a crime (which is not supportable with him being the 911 caller and the facts of this case, following, pursuing, or 911 operators directions included)and in fear of injury.

Those are the only two factors they have to meet to be given immunity. GZ was not committing a crime and in the moment he pulled the trigger he was afraid of serious injury. You have witnesses and police report that say he was on the bottom, he is the 911 caller, and there is a bloody photo. He doesn't even have to prove he was injured just that he was in reasonable fear that he would be. He exceeds that as the law is currently written.

Weight, height, sprinting times all great debate points on the moral side. Legally, not as written. SYG absolves the shooter of almost all accounting of their decision leading to them being in fear of injury.

 

[cityslick]

It seems to me that TM couldn't do anything right. I've read comments where people say that he made himself suspicious by running and others that said he should have run all the way home and then he'd have been alive today. I agree with Dr. Fessel, he is not on trial and he can't tell us what he was thinking because he's dead. We can only go by what is reasonable. It's reasonable for TM to think he's in danger, as indeed he was, since he was followed by a person who wasn't law enforcement or security and didn't identify himself. But fear doesn't come all at once. Things happen to make you uneasy, but then sometimes you dismiss them as not being what you thought they were. I can see TM being concerned then deciding there was nothing more to worry about and slowing down to talk to his friend before going in. Teenagers don't like to look foolish or childish or fearful. (I'll just walk fast sounds so much like a teen to me). But once GZ appeared before him again he says to his friend "He's right behind me again." and that's when I think he was genuinely afraid, not worried or anxious.

As far as TM's actions between the time that GZ hung up and the confrontation started, we do know one thing and that is that he was talking on the phone. As I've said before, it's a little hard to sneak up on someone you are hoping to 'sucker punch' if you are chatting away.

But that's the law as it currently stands (as far as I understand it). GZ was not committing a crime when he came up on TM and according to the GF, asked 'what he was doing there'. There has been other cases that have been linked already in days past, cases that had similar situations to what we're talking about here and those defendants got aquitted based of this law.

 

[HiHater]

You do have a right to confront anyone you choose, but that person also has a right to react based on how they perceive the confrontation. It is not against the law, per se, to follow (or CHASE) anyone, but it does have the potential to create a hostile situation. It's aggravating, and if you are pursuing someone, you are the aggressor. Under no circumstance is someone who is running AWAY posing an active threat to a person who is following them. I'd have to double check, but I don't even think police officers can use deadly force on a fleeing felon. This situation, in my opinion, is not a series of events as some like to portray it. It's one continuous occurrence; from the time GZ got out of his car and started following Trayvon, he was the aggressor.

Like fruits from a bad tree, GZ cannot be the pursuer, the chaser, the follower, the aggressor up until the actual confrontation happens. That makes no sense. He initiated the confrontation. Trayvon had no reason to approach him, he wasn't the one who had deemed someone suspicious and decided that the person would not get away.

I don't think any lawyer would go into court and say "sure, my client was following the victim, but the victim completely overreacted and became aggressive." That's what's being argued on this forum. It's completely flawed logic IMO.

Most reasonable people don't follow people who they deem to be "suspicious", and most reasonable people would be fearful if a stranger was following them. Jurors are reasonable people.

JMO MOO IMO

 

[suzihawk]

Probably had buds at SPD!

There is no doubt in my mind that GZ was well known to the SPD. And not just because of his numerous calls reporting what he perceived as suspicious behavior of others. It's a small town and he wanted to be one of 'them'.

IIRC, FT on his media tour went to great lengths to 'share' that George wanted him to let everyone know that he didn't know Chief Lee prior to 2/26 when that's been widely disputed.

Chief Lee taught a criminolgy safety class at the same college during the same time that George was taking classes in pursuit of a career in criminology - allegedly.

IMO JMO MOO

 

[Adrienne37]

Have we been successful in finding anything in the statutes in Florida or case law that addresses the issue of Zimmerman stalking a minor? I would think that the laws of stalking would be considerably different if the person being stalked is a minor.


~jmo~

 

[csziggy]

What I am saying is I think it is illegal for him to carry the gun in view. He has to keep it concealed.

I think he showed Trayvon that gun.

I'm not at all familiar with conceal weapons laws. Florida allows open carry within certain parameters but I don't know the details. I do know when I was assaulted on my property my Dad's LE friends said I could carry my 22 on my hip in a holster without any kind of permit as long as it was fully visible and not hidden and as long as I was on my property doing my regular routine. I elected not to - the revolver would have been in the way and *I* considered it a provocation that could escalate the situation.

But would carrying a weapon in his hand be considered 'brandishing' which I believe is illegal, concealed carry or permit not?

Here is information from last year about open carry in Florida:

Open carry gun bill amended in Florida Senate
5:23 PM, Apr 27, 2011
Tallahassee, Florida - Florida senators have amended a bill that aimed to allow people to carry guns openly in Florida.

Under the amendment, open carry will still be banned in the state. But legal gun owners who accidentally expose their concealed weapons will not face arrest under the new version of the bill.

<SNIP>

"It will allow people to carry firearms, for instance, underneath a jacket and if they inadvertently expose it, it will not subject them to arrest," said Maj. Clyde Eisenberg of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office.
http://www.wtsp.com/rss/article/189218/82/Open-carry-gun-bill-amended-in-Florida-Senate

I'm not sure if this change passed, though. BTW, my incident happened in 1989 - laws could have been passed banning and allowing open carry many times since then, so I don't know what the actual laws were back then.

IMO, JMO, etc.

 

[cityslick]

You do have a right to confront anyone you choose, but that person also has a right to react based on how they perceive the confrontation. It is not against the law, per se, to follow (or CHASE) anyone, but it does have the potential to create a hostile situation. It's aggravating, and if you are pursuing someone, you are the aggressor. Under no circumstance is someone who is running AWAY posing an active threat to a person who is following them. I'd have to double check, but I don't even think police officers can use deadly force on a fleeing felon. This situation, in my opinion, is not a series of events as some like to portray it. It's one continuous occurrence; from the time GZ got out of his car and started following Trayvon, he was the aggressor.

Like fruits from a bad tree, GZ cannot be the pursuer, the chaser, the follower, the aggressor up until the actual confrontation happens. That makes no sense. He initiated the confrontation. Trayvon had no reason to approach him, he wasn't the one who had deemed someone suspicious and decided that the person would not get away.

I don't think any lawyer would go into court and say "sure, my client was following the victim, but the victim completely overreacted and became aggressive." That's what's being argued on this forum. It's completely flawed logic IMO.

Most reasonable people don't follow people who they deem to be "suspicious", and most reasonable people would be fearful if a stranger was following them. Jurors are reasonable people.

JMO MOO IMO

So, what your saying is if I notice someone watching me, I make sure I get out of his line of sight, then I go about my business (talking on the phone, keep walking, etc), then I see this person again and he says to me 'why are you here', and I say something back and a confrontation ensues, I'd be perfectly in the right of anything I do to the person who confronted me, because I didn't like him watching me and asking a question?

If you took the gun out the equation and the events happened the exact same way, with an assumption that TM started the physical confrontation, could GZ not press charges for assault?

 

[impatientredhead]

You do have a right to confront anyone you choose, but that person also has a right to react based on how they perceive the confrontation. It is not against the law, per se, to follow (or CHASE) anyone, but it does have the potential to create a hostile situation. It's aggravating, and if you are pursuing someone, you are the aggressor. Under no circumstance is someone who is running AWAY posing an active threat to a person who is following them. I'd have to double check, but I don't even think police officers can use deadly force on a fleeing felon. This situation, in my opinion, is not a series of events as some like to portray it. It's one continuous occurrence; from the time GZ got out of his car and started following Trayvon, he was the aggressor.

Like fruits from a bad tree, GZ cannot be the pursuer, the chaser, the follower, the aggressor up until the actual confrontation happens. That makes no sense. He initiated the confrontation. Trayvon had no reason to approach him, he wasn't the one who had deemed someone suspicious and decided that the person would not get away.

I don't think any lawyer would go into court and say "sure, my client was following the victim, but the victim completely overreacted and became aggressive." That's what's being argued on this forum. It's completely flawed logic IMO.

Most reasonable people don't follow people who they deem to be "suspicious", and most reasonable people would be fearful if a stranger was following them. Jurors are reasonable people.

JMO MOO IMO

That can be your personal belief and the law can be rewritten but as it stands now and how it has been applied in real life several of the shooters/live one pursued the deceased for considerable distance before finding themselves in fear of injury. The one that stab the guy who stole his radio, that guy didn't call the police, hid the weapon, lied to the cops, saw video, told a new lie, than came up with another version, had been found to have sold the other radios the deceased had stole that night and was STILL aquitted at his SYG hearing. Never even saw a jury.

The one that pursued a speeder who was now parked had to go into his house to get his gun before going to their house, ended up shooting the passenger of the vehicle in the head twice. His actions are at least as reckless as GZs.