17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #15

[OneLove]

I agree. I'm still interested in knowing IF he lifts weights on a regular basis and is/was perhaps taking steroids...JMHO

The steroids is a GREAT question. We've certainly seen how they can affect rage and impulse control.

 

[lillygator]

If we're going to split hairs here, he was just days past his sixteenth birthday! That's a child in my book. A helpless child. MOO

if he had shot GZ, would everyone be wanting him tried as a child or adult?

he was 17, not 16.

 

[CathyinTexas]

Whats up with the guy who appeared on NG's show last night defending GZ's claims and injuries, but yet when asked IF he had seen or spoken with GZ since the incident, he readily states..No, he hasn't.... Why is he being given "air time" when he hasn't even seen or spoken to GZ since the shooting? JMHO

I have thought from the beginning that his purpose is CYA, of the HOA, I mean. He probably knows Florida law enough to know the family probably has a case against the HOA. Now we hear that a lawsuit is going to be filed against them.

 

[songline]

if he had shot GZ, would everyone be wanting him tried as a child or adult?

he was 17, not 16.

Those who are on TM side without knowing anything would want him tried as a child. After all they are still calling him a child. JMO

The only people who can consider TM a child are his parents, because even if he was 50 he is still their child.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Ok I just listened to the 911 tapes again and noticed nobody says they were fighting, 2 people that saw anything said they were wrestling. One of those said wrestling around I believe.

Does anyone have a link where the police say they did not hear the racial slur on the tape? Looking for a quote.

 

[Velouria]

if he had shot GZ, would everyone be wanting him tried as a child or adult?

he was 17, not 16.

There are 13 and 14 year-olds tried as adults nowadays.

Does that make them adults?

Straw. Man.

 

[Isabelle]

Trying to find timeline of events. Would that be in the media file and if it is, where is the Trayvon Martin media file? Thanks

 

[CathyinTexas]

A big piece of this puzzle is going to depend on the forensics of that gun. IF both TM's and GZ's prints are on it - well, that clearly shows a struggle over the gun. If not and only GZ's prints - then, there is a problem.

The only way I see this being a self-defense case is what I outlined above. What I just don't understand is why GZ re-holstered the gun. That could have caused critical evidence - possibly in GZ's defense to maybe be wiped off. And if this was a close range shot - there is a good possibility that there was blood on it. Re-holstering it? IDK.

That's one of the big things, in my mind, that I'm waiting to see what the lab says. If TM's prints are not found on that gun - well, I don't see a self defense case holding any water.


JMHO

Why couldn't the prints on the gun still support murder. It is logical that if Trayvon saw the gun pointed out him he would try to deflect it, stop GZ from shooting him. That would be a "reasonable" response, imo.

 

[suzihawk]

Ok I just listened to the 911 tapes again and noticed nobody says they were fighting, 2 people that saw anything said they were wrestling. One of those said wrestling around I believe.

Does anyone have a link where the police say they did not hear the racial slur on the tape? Looking for a quote.

Does this help Doc?


The Florida police department handling the fatal shooting of an unarmed black teen by a self-appointed neighborhood watch leader admitted to ABC News tonight that investigators missed a possible racist remark by the shooter as he spoke to police dispatchers moments before the killing.

The admission comes a day after the Justice Department announced that it has launched an investigation of the slaying of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman last month as a possible hate crime.

http://gma.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin...eals-possible-racial-005007672--abc-news.html

 

[imamaze]

Trying to find timeline of events. Would that be in the media file and if it is, where is the Trayvon Martin media file? Thanks

I'm not sure if we have a timeline here but this is the Media thread...

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166507"]Trayvon Martin Shooting Media Thread - NO DISCUSSION - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[daisy7]

I agree about him admitting right off. But that was a precarious situation to put any LE in to. Now, you have a shooter admitting that he shot and then telling them "the gun is in my belt" (or whatever he said). That now means the officer has to approach you and take that gun from you. Close contact. Scarey. What if the shooter goes for it just as you (officer) does. IIRC the report says that the officer retrieved the gun and not that GZ was ordered to remove it and lay it on the ground.

As for "instinctively" - IIRC (and I don't have the link) GZ had only had the gun for months. He had never shot (and killed) anyone. So what his instincts would be in that situation is irrevelant. In fact, I would think - most instincts would have been to drop it - you just shot someone and killed them - that's pretty horriffic. To have the presence of mind to re-holster the gun - IDK.

I just think GZ made it more dangerous and I bet that officer that approached and retrieved it was quite apprenhensive about doing it. If GZ would have even flinched - could have been nasty. KWIM?



JMHO

ITA! And, while he had every right to have his gun with him in the car, why did he feel the need to carry it in a holster? Did he always do this?

One of my neighbors has a concealed weapon permit and he keeps his gun locked in the console of his car (even when he's home). He's an armed security guard, but the only time he has his gun in a holster is when he's at work. I was talking to him about this case a few days ago and he was puzzled why GZ would be driving in a car with his gun in a holster.

IMO.

 

[Isabelle]

Does this help Doc?


The Florida police department handling the fatal shooting of an unarmed black teen by a self-appointed neighborhood watch leader admitted to ABC News tonight that investigators missed a possible racist remark by the shooter as he spoke to police dispatchers moments before the killing.

The admission comes a day after the Justice Department announced that it has launched an investigation of the slaying of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman last month as a possible hate crime.

http://gma.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin...eals-possible-racial-005007672--abc-news.html

Talk about being in CYA mode!

 

[LaLaw2000]

ITA! And, while he had every right to have his gun with him in the car, why did he feel the need to carry it in a holster? Did he always do this?

One of my neighbors has a concealed weapon permit and he keeps his gun locked in the console of his car (even when he's home). He's an armed security guard, but the only time he has his gun in a holster is when he's at work. I was talking to him about this case a few days ago and he was puzzled why GZ would be driving in a car with his gun in a holster.

IMO.

I have a permit to carry too, daisy7, but have not carried it with me for years. It is locked away in a gun cabinet and the bullets are even in another place.

IMO, GZ really seems to me to be the type to carry his weapon with him for the simple reason he can. I think he is very proud of his permit to carry and it gives him 'courage' and thoughts of being invincible. With his 9MM, GZ feels 10 feet tall and bulletproof, IMO. That 9MM is the courage he needed to follow Trayvon and be the agressor, IMO. I do hope Trayvon got a good punch in before GZ pulled his gun out. GZ is a coward in my opinion.

MOO

 

[Concerned Papa]

I have never worked in law enforcement and have never been to the scene of a murder investigation. In all honesty, pretty much the sum of what I thought I knew came from television and the movies. Somewhere along the way I've apparently been fed a ton of bs regarding how a murder is investigated.

I'm not meaning to go after the Sanford Police Dept., but I've been spending some time with the police report trying to comprehend how this all went down. This Officer Smith who did the report says he's the one who first approached GZ, disarmed him, put him in cuffs, and marched him back to his squad car. He says he never asked him ANYTHING!

How does that work? There's a dead body laying there, this dude tells you he shot him and you don't even have a brief conversation with him as to how he says it all happened?

I thought Investigators of a murder did their work at the scene. I know they do on Law and Order, but this guy was skipping along in the police station 36 minutes after he killed the victim! The report says an Investigator investigated him there! How in the heck do you check a guy's story out from the other side of town?

The part that's so obviously contrived about this report deals with an officer telling us he didn't question the suspect but the report is laced with "I overheard him say blah, blah, blah" or "While I was doing ____I noticed grass yada, yada, yada, and blood coming out his_____." You've flat out got to wonder about someone whose powers of observation allegedy compells him to specifically note grass on the back of a coat AND it being wet.....while it's RAINING! What about the rest of the coat? IT DIDN'T GET WET?

Then you got the real gem of this deal. How in the hell can a Chief of Police get up in front of more cameras and mics than the Super Bowl has and tell the world what a squeaky clean record a dude has with assaulting an LE Officer on his record, in this day and age of computers, cross agency ties, NCIC, etc?

Oh well, in the meantime we'll all just sit around arguing the points of this case, the Feds will hopefully straighten it all out, but a mother's son will still be no more.

 

[katydid23]

I have never worked in law enforcement and have never been to the scene of a murder investigation. In all honesty, pretty much the sum of what I thought I knew came from television and the movies. Somewhere along the way I've apparently been fed a ton of bs regarding how a murder is investigated.

I'm not meaning to go after the Sanford Police Dept., but I've been spending some time with the police report trying to comprehend how this all went down. This Officer Smith who did the report says he's the one who first approached GZ, disarmed him, put him in cuffs, and marched him back to his squad car. He says he never asked him ANYTHING!

How does that work? There's a dead body laying there, this dude tells you he shot him and you don't even have a brief conversation with him as to how he says it all happened?

I thought Investigators of a murder did their work at the scene. I know they do on Law and Order, but this guy was skipping along in the police station 36 minutes after he killed the victim! The report says an Investigator investigated him there! How in the heck do you check a guy's story out from the other side of town?

The part that's so obviously contrived about this report deals with an officer telling us he didn't question the suspect but the report is laced with "I overheard him say blah, blah, blah" or "While I was doing ____I noticed grass yada, yada, yada, and blood coming out his_____." You've flat out got to wonder about someone whose powers of observation allegedy compells him to specifically note grass on the back of a coat AND it being wet.....while it's RAINING! What about the rest of the coat? IT DIDN'T GET WET?

Then you got the real gem of this deal. How in the hell can a Chief of Police get up in front of more cameras and mics than the Super Bowl has and tell the world what a squeaky clean record a dude has that has assaulting an LE Officer on his record, in this day and age of computers, cross agency ties, NCIC, etc?

Oh well, in the meantime we'll all just sit around arguing the points of this case, the Feds will hopefully straighten it all out, but a mother's son will still be no more.

BBM

The patrolman is not supposed to ask a suspect who has already admitted to the crime anything at all about it at that point. Because anything he says can be thrown out anyway and they don't want him to start talking BEFORE the detectives get to him.

The patrolman did the exact right thing, imo. He was not the investigator anymore because the perp confessed to the shooting. If the cop came on the scene and nobody confessed then he would be asking questions to try and lock down the scene.

eta: if the cop did ask him about it and he began with a long confession then it could ALL be thrown out because he didnt have a chance to get an attorney yet.

 

[suzihawk]

Trying to find timeline of events. Would that be in the media file and if it is, where is the Trayvon Martin media file? Thanks

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/04/02/trayvon-martin-shooting-timeline

 

[Wise Old Owl]

BBM

The patrolman is not supposed to ask a suspect who has already admitted to the crime anything at all about it at that point. Because anything he says can be thrown out anyway and they don't want him to start talking BEFORE the detectives get to him.

The patrolman did the exact right thing, imo. He was not the investigator anymore because the perp confessed to the shooting. If the cop came on the scene and nobody confessed then he would be asking questions to try and lock down the scene.

eta: if the cop did ask him about it and he began with a long confession then it could ALL be thrown out because he didnt have a chance to get an attorney yet.

I don't understand why the responding officer didn't bag his hands though. GZ admitted being the shooter. That much the officer knew. Didn't ask anymore - so, even armed with just that (and only that) why wasn't his hands bagged to preserve evidence?

IDK - maybe just a rookie mistake? If it was - wow, what a horrible one to make.



JMHO

 

[jjenny]

I don't understand why the responding officer didn't bag his hands though. GZ admitted being the shooter. That much the officer knew. Didn't ask anymore - so, even armed with just that (and only that) why wasn't his hands bagged to preserve evidence?

IDK - maybe just a rookie mistake? If it was - wow, what a horrible one to make.



JMHO

GZ right away admitted he shot Trayvon. I am not sure what evidence could have been found on his hands that would make a difference.

 

[katydid23]

I don't understand why the responding officer didn't bag his hands though. GZ admitted being the shooter. That much the officer knew. Didn't ask anymore - so, even armed with just that (and only that) why wasn't his hands bagged to preserve evidence?

IDK - maybe just a rookie mistake? If it was - wow, what a horrible one to make.

JMHO

I agree with that question. It seems that they would want that kind of evidence preserved. Maybe they did check for that kind of forensics back at the station though. IDK

 

[jjenny]

I agree with that question. It seems that they would want that kind of evidence preserved. Maybe they did check for that kind of forensics back at the station though. IDK

But what difference is that going to make? This is not a case of who did it, but a case of why he did it.