17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #35

[LolaMoon08]

Andy Rooney once said, "People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."

This is not directed to any one person in particular. I love the passion of the members here and am excited I finally decided to join in on the conversation. I think it is possible to feel one way and still see the facts objectively.

It is wonderful and refreshing to see individuals engaging with one another in a civil and respectful way online.

:welcome:

Wondeful first post!!

 

[m00c0w]

I will not concede GZ was within his authority to follow anyone. I would think that an innocent child walking a public street being followed by an adult with a gun is illegal.

I can't imagine why anyone would just follow someone. There is always a purpose to every action. What was GZ's purpose? Therein lies the problem for me. Saying he was just following him innocently doesn't make a lick of sense. GZ clearly had his purpose and hasn't denied it.

Think GZ would have quietly observed if he had attempted to rob a home? I think not. GZ was on a mission to get this boy arrested/questioned. He was not innocently following him (even if you think he legally could).

At the end of this innocent surveillance done by Mr. Zimmerman, there is a dead child. At the least, his following a minor child in a public place for no reason is harrassing the minor.

I suppose it is all the fault of Trayvon that he was killed walking home with candy and a sugary drink. There is no law to permit GZ to follow no more than there is to allow him to take the law into his own hands, or shoot a child.

Trayvons' mistake was he didn't call police and say 'there's a dude stalking me". I maybe wrong but it looks like that to me. Like a hunter stalking his prey.

I have things to do. Enjoyed the exchange and I will check back in the morning for your reply.

I never said there wasn't a motive. I said he was just following Martin. Which he was. There's nothing illegal about following someone, as long as you're not yelling threats at them or similar. Or they have a restraining order against you, or you follow them on multiple occasions with a clearly malicious intent. Just following someone for the equivalent of a city block isn't illegal.

Was it a great idea? Not at all. That doesn't mean it was an unlawful act.

 

[Sherbie]

I am not asking for anything other than a law or statute that made it legal for GZ to follow Trayvon. That is all. I think Trayvon was within his rights to walk the streets and as far as I know there is no law that allows a private citizen to approach him for any reason. There is not any evidence that Trayvon had done anything wrong.

Gwen, my understanding is that it is not unlawful to follow someone around or speak to them, even talk garbage to them; that it only becomes unlawful when a verbal threat of harm or actual physical contact is made. What someone should/should not be doing from a common sense or moral standpoint doesn't always line up with what they're prohibited from doing by law.

A defendant isn't required to prove his actions were lawful - the state has to prove they were unlawful. I think if GZ were acting unlawfully in following TM or disregarding (if he did) the dispatcher's comment that he didn't need to do so, the state certainly would've charged him for those acts as well.

The point is that I don't think anyone will be able to show you a law allowing a behavior since anything not prohibited by law would by definition be legal. That's a totally separate issue from whether a behavior is stupid or morally reprehensible - I totally agree that GZ should have left it alone as the dispatcher advised.

The state may have the proof they need to show GZ committed murder 2 (there's no way to know yet), but I think even they didn't consider the following or disregarding of dispatcher to be illegal. JMO.

 

[LolaMoon08]

It doesn't matter if you're on the phone with the Pope with a bible in your hand. You're still just following someone until you make contact with them. Then, depending on what is said, you may nor may not be considered harassing them. So far, "What are you doing here?" is the only thing we can safely assume Zimmerman said before the affray. That is hardly a threat or an unlawful question.


Huh? You're the one saying you don't think it's lawful. Show me the law restricting his actions. You're asking me to prove a negative. It doesn't work like that.

BBM Apparently George was "reaching" for something -- Daddy says phone -- I say gun -- while saying this and this is when Trayvon seen the gun and we're to believe Trayvon punched him and George fell back. If that was true, as soon as Trayvon punched George and he fell to the ground, Trayvon would have run. I believe that Trayvon may have pushed George when he seen he had a gun, but then George grabbed onto his jacket, and this is when they both went to the ground and the struggled started.

We can go round and round, but there is no doubt in my mind that George was reaching for that gun and not that phone. The minute George reached for that gun, he lost any rights to self defense because he was commiting a crime by doing that and it was Trayvon who had every right to defend himself.

MOO

 

[vlpate]

Don't want to get in trouble, but let's just say they have very similar pasts. In case you are looking, it is spelled Taaffe.

That can be said for everyone in this case. I don't care for Taaffe, but everyone has a main bird they fly with...just saying.

 

[HiHater]

The state did not have the girls testimony earlier. Why assume they are going to discount it? I would go the the proper channels first,and the press last.

Now that process order has been reversed, and so some of the authenticity MAY come into question as it may have been tainted. imo

but a picture taken 3 minutes after a shooting, at a crime scene, possibly by a police officer, before a gunshot victim has been pronounced dead, is perfectly fine to be admitted into evidence according to some people.

There's something wrong! *Cindy Anthony voice*

 

[HiHater]

I never said there wasn't a motive. I said he was just following Martin. Which he was. There's nothing illegal about following someone, as long as you're not yelling threats at them or similar. Or they have a restraining order against you, or you follow them on multiple occasions with a clearly malicious intent. Just following someone for the equivalent of a city block isn't illegal.

Was it a great idea? Not at all. That doesn't mean it was an unlawful act.

If you follow someone, and they start running--- what are you doing at that point?

Just wondering, anyone...

 

[HiHater]

It's not illegal to follow someone. It's not illegal to talk, but if you say certain things, you can plan on going to jail. Context is the biggest thing here. Following someone could fall into another category, such as harassment...criminal threatening...etc.

JMO MOO

 

[Gwen]

I never said there wasn't a motive. I said he was just following Martin. Which he was. There's nothing illegal about following someone, as long as you're not yelling threats at them or similar. Or they have a restraining order against you, or you follow them on multiple occasions with a clearly malicious intent. Just following someone for the equivalent of a city block isn't illegal.

Was it a great idea? Not at all. That doesn't mean it was an unlawful act.

Doncha just wonder on what grounds a cop was going to stop this child and question him? GZ only told 911 he looked suspicious or something to that effect. He hadn't violated any laws. I would think that even if they did respond to the call of Mr. Zimmerman it was only to observe Trayvon. There was no reason to stop him even for law enforcement. I suppose they could have approached him legally and asked him a few questions, but that reeks of harrassment to me as there was no crime reported.

Also, as many times as GZ called 911 I doubt his call got priority and was pushed back to a courtesy call if law enforcement was going to come at all. I wonder if cops would have came there at all if GZ hadn't killed Trayvon? JMO

There was simply no reason for GZ or the police to be following Trayvon. It is not debatable and it is not going to fly with a jury. I fear that this kid was indeed profiled.

Really out.......goodnite

 

[HiHater]

Double post...

 

[Helplessly Hoping]

I never said there wasn't a motive. I said he was just following Martin. Which he was. There's nothing illegal about following someone, as long as you're not yelling threats at them or similar. Or they have a restraining order against you, or you follow them on multiple occasions with a clearly malicious intent. Just following someone for the equivalent of a city block isn't illegal.

Was it a great idea? Not at all. That doesn't mean it was an unlawful act.

This thinking confuse me. Maybe not unlawful but clearly disturbing IMO.

BBM----Isn't there something inherently creepy in doing so? I mean if anyone--male or female--was following me when I was a teen (I am female) I would have been freaked out big time. I would have thought they were out to do me harm.

As an adult, if I saw someone suspicious around my neighborhood and were concerned, I'd call the police and let them do their jobs. I believe that's the rational thing to do and to appoint oneself as someone who can just jump in with a gun and save the day from some phantom threat is IMVHO borderline delusional. Trayvon was the one who could have invoked SYG. If I'm walking home and find myself being followed by a stranger...I have the right to defend myself as the stranger came into my world.....But best to call LE.

Then, you've done (potentially) a public service and no one dies.

 

[vlpate]

It has been reported by MSM, that she gave her testimony before the SP and prosecutors.

After their ABC exclusive. She gave a sworn statement with her attorney present. I don't think she was deposed, IIRC

 

[Just K]

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7861957&postcount=164"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Trayvon Martin Shooting Media Thread - NO DISCUSSION[/ame]

By leaving Colorado Springs and going to Sandford, it sounds like this new "Acting" Chief of Police might be "jumping from the frying pan into the fire." http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/01/us/florida-teen-shooting/index.html

 

[Chris_Texas]

I was a bad kid. I was suspended from school, smoked weed, talked like an idiot sometimes, did a bit of under-aged drinking, mouthed off to my parents sometimes, and I was kicked out of a Catholic school at 17, for being pregnant.

I guess I deserve to be shot and killed. Where's GZ? Send him my way. Let's see if he's got it in him.

The minor disciplinary issues he had are nothing more than an effort by some to downplay this crime. Those pushing this angle are trying to plant in the reader (or listener's mind) that Trayvon was a BAD KID. It says more about the person bringing this nonsense up than it does about Trayvon, and none of it is good. You have to be a real piece of work to suggest, even indirectly, that a murdered teen had it coming. Amazingly there are many doing just that.

 

[Allusonz]

Her statement was recorded. If her testimony differs, she impeaches herself basically. What's the problem with this, I don't see where you're going? They didn't secretly question her, they recorded her statement with ABC News present.

Protocols and procedures are implemented to ensure that the integrity of an investigation is kept whether that is for DNA or for witness testimony.

When these are not followed there is the potential for contamination which in essence could be the deciding factor in any trial.

That could be a possibility with respect to this individuals testimony and any good defense lawyer will look for things like this in any case.

 

[vlpate]

This thinking confuse me. Maybe not unlawful but clearly disturbing IMO.

BBM----Isn't there something inherently creepy in doing so? I mean if anyone--male or female--was following me when I was a teen (I am female) I would have been freaked out big time. I would have thought they were out to do me harm.

As an adult, if I saw someone suspicious around my neighborhood and were concerned, I'd call the police and let them do their jobs. I believe that's the rational thing to do and to appoint oneself as someone who can just jump in with a gun and save the day from some phantom threat is IMVHO borderline delusional. Trayvon was the one who could have invoked SYG. If I'm walking home and find myself being followed by a stranger...I have the right to defend myself as the stranger came into my world.....But best to call LE.

Then, you've done (potentially) a public service and no one dies.

Why is it everyone forgets that TM came toward GZ's truck, and then took off running. Do you think this is going to tell a jury TM was scared? This is indisputable evidence. GZ said TM looked "really" suspicious, he didn't say there was a kid walking down the sidewalk. Why would an AA young man look suspicious walking down the sidewalk in a community that is 1/3 AA? TM took off running and then, apparently stopped somewhere for two full minutes. A jury is going to look at this, not at what the media has maliciously put out there to brainwash the public.

He couldn't have been "chasing" him - in order to have done that, TM would have had to wait two minutes for GZ to catch up with him. It's common sense, reality, and JMO

 

[vlpate]

Her statement was recorded. If her testimony differs, she impeaches herself basically. What's the problem with this, I don't see where you're going? They didn't secretly question her, they recorded her statement with ABC News present.

Who is "they"? Crump has no part in this case, his place is not to depose witnesses, his place is to represent the family in a civil suit, which will probably come later.

Is that normal protocol - taking a witness statement over the phone at the news station with Matt Guttman? I did not know this.

 

[tehcloser]

Everyone doesn't forget.....it's just that everyone does not believe GZ.

 

[highflyer]

Why is it everyone forgets that TM came toward GZ's truck, and then took off running. Do you think this is going to tell a jury TM was scared? This is indisputable evidence. GZ said TM looked "really" suspicious, he didn't say there was a kid walking down the sidewalk. Why would an AA young man look suspicious walking down the sidewalk in a community that is 1/3 AA? TM took off running and then, apparently stopped somewhere for two full minutes. A jury is going to look at this, not at what the media has maliciously put out there to brainwash the public.

He couldn't have been "chasing" him - in order to have done that, TM would have had to wait two minutes for GZ to catch up with him. It's common sense, reality, and JMO

How is TM coming toward George's truck indisputable evidence?

 

[vlpate]

Protocols and procedures are implemented to ensure that the integrity of an investigation is kept whether that is for DNA or for witness testimony.

When these are not followed there is the potential for contamination which in essence could be the deciding factor in any trial.

That could be a possibility with respect to this individuals testimony and any good defense lawyer will look for things like this in any case.

Wow, good point. So her testimony could be thrown out completely because of the ABC interview? I certainly hope not, but it would explain a lot.