17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #16

[Dr.Fessel]

I disagree on the importance of the coat. But anyhow, I believe, as long as the coat is at least 51% red, it is legally a red coat, a red coat with black trim at most, not a red and black coat, so the officers statement would still be correct.

Here is why I think the red and black coat is the key to this case. The single most important piece of evidence there is as far as we know now.

The grass and water on Zimmerman's back Officer Smith says he saw places Zimmerman on his back. With Mr. Zimmerman riding in the police car and leaning up against the wall the grass is probably gone from the coat so we just have Officer Smith's word for it.

Two witnesses we know of have said the guy on bottom was wearing a red something, one called it a sweater and one called it a shirt. It was so dark they could not tell if the guy on top or bottom was black or white but they could tell the color of the sweater or shirt.

The so called jacket which i call a coat because it appears to go down over Zimerman's hips was the object hiding the gun. The condition of the zipper is very important, was it up or down in the struggle or was it even working.

The only thing that puts Zimmerman on the bottom are two witnesses in the dark saying they saw something red. IMO

Link to video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WWDNbQUgm4&feature=youtu.be

 

[LambChop]

I respectfully disagree.

This is a sore that has healed over and become a festering pustule that has broken open again and again. Sanford was a town founded on racism that has maintained that racism for over a hundred years. As much as we all wish racism were not a part of this it is.

IMO, of course.

But fighting racism with racism is just not the answer. The Martin's are doing what they have to do. The FBI has been called in and will investigate. Personally I hope the FBI takes him in, at least he'll be safe. jmo

 

[ynotdivein]

I've had to remove some documents that were incompletely redacted. Fine to discuss/give evidence w/links but please let's not drag these folks' names into this discussion.

 

[songline]

I get that, and I am not one who thinks GZ necessarily targeted trayvon for being black, rather I think GZ liked to target pretty much everyone and play superman. I'm not trying to make any judgements about that although I may say GZ and I would never be friends.

HOWEVER. I am not talking about his "right to size him up" I am talking about whether or not is it okay to get out of one's vehicle - after calling 911 and knowing LE is on the way, after being told "you dont need to [follow him]"- getting out of his vehicle to follow trayvon and confront him one way or the other, is IMO absolutely NOT AN OK THING TO DO.I live outside a bus stop in a country well known for its penchant for heavy drinking. one night a few months back a few guys got a lil crazy out there so did I bounce out after them, superman style to lay the smacketh down? certainly not, I locked the front door and waited for someone else to call 999 :blushing:


(no, no one was hurt, it was all noise and plenty of it....but I didnt know that from inside the house with kids)

IS IT OK TO GET OUT OFCAR? it is legal for GZ to get out of his car.
911 told him "we do not need you to do that. Still legal for him to do that.

NOW if you ask would I have done that...:nono: I would continue to follow by car, stay in the car and waite for the police.

But IMHO GZ did want to see the house address, he was not clear on the building number as we can hear in the 911 call.
I do not know what happend after that, but GZ was overzelouse.
Was TM scared? maybe he was startled by GZ after he though he had
finally lost him? Maybe? Many Maybes....

 

[Donjeta]

IS IT OK TO GET OUT OFCAR? it is legal for GZ to get out of his car.
911 told him "we do not need you to do that. Still legal for him to do that.

NOW if you ask would I have done that...:nono: I would continue to follow by car, stay in the car and waite for the police.

But IMHO GZ did want to see the house address, he was not clear on the building number as we can hear in the 911 call.
I do not know what happend after that, but GZ was overzelouse.
Was TM scared? maybe he was startled by GZ after he though he had
finally lost him? Maybe? Many Maybes....

Aren't the house numbers on the street side of the houses? He wouldn't have to get out of his vehicle to see a house address, I wouldn't think.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

image snipped for space
BBM

and one white male.

Wonder how many white males GZ stopped following this report?

Maybe none were acting suspicious?

 

[tlcya]

BBM How would Martin have known any of those these things?

Said (on the 911 call) several names?

Said (on the 911 call) he was following?

He was carry a CONCEALED weapon?

As far as Martin knew, another resident inside the gated community stopped his vehicle, got out and was walking in his direction. If that is reason to be feel threatened, we'd be experiencing a agraphobia pandemic.

And I ask, if Zimmerman is guilty of assault by the definition listed below, why wasn't/isn't he arrested for that while they determine other charges that he may or may not be arrested on?

Correction. As far as Martin knew a strange man in a vehicle was following him through a neighborhood he himself was unfamiliar with paying him unwanted and unwarranted attention. As far as TM knew - GZ was the one behaving suspiciously and possibly up to no good.

These two did not just "bump into one another" while both were going about their evening's business. GZ was not merely walking in the direction towards TM. He was walking after TM after having very consciously and purposefully following him through the neighborhood.

Two very different circumstances.

 

[Velouria]

wow. He was standing up for a chubby kid who was being bullied by neighborhood kids. Normally that would be considered a good thing by most people here. Now it is seen as evidence that he is a cold blooded monster, imo.

Evidence that he is a "cold blooded monster"? I don't think so. :giggle:

It does however, demonstrate that GZ is willing to go beyond just reporting crimes or disturbances in the neighborhood, IMO.

 

[Velouria]

Maybe none were acting suspicious?

Right. :floorlaugh:

 

[songline]

But fighting racism with racism is just not the answer. The Martin's are doing what they have to do. The FBI has been called in and will investigate. Personally I hope the FBI takes him in, at least he'll be safe. jmo

If your first sentence is what you really believe then how can it be followed up with the sentence I made red? I do not get it.
I get that the Martins deserve an answer and I hope the FBI will get them that.
But I do not get how we can say fighting racism with racism is not the answer, but the martins are doing what they have t do :waitasec:
really, I am not trying to be rude to you, I just don’t get it.
IMHO they could have stopped it from becoming a civil/racial matter.
BUT I AM GLAD they did not just take the police word for it. I am glad they are standing up, it is just HOW that I do question.

 

[CathyinTexas]

Yes that has been quite evident...no further interviews after his "close" relationship was exposed.

In the last few days the other friend, Taffey??, has admitted that he has neither seen nor spoken with GZ AT ALL since the event nor did he for WEEKS prior to the incident. He admitted that there has only been one voice mail left during that time period and he avoided answering whether HE left the message or GZ left a message for him.

Also, CNN this a.m. put up the REAL information on the 8 burglaries....only FOUR are suspected to have been done by black suspects. The rest have no identified suspects at all.

EDITED TO ADD: The CNN research into the burglaries also discovered that the one that supposedly happened at Taffey's own house NEVER occurred....it was called in by GZ but when LE arrived there was NO ONE at all in the area and no sign of any kind of attempt to break in.

So, what does that tell us? Possibly that GZ can't be believed?

 

[songline]

wow. He was standing up for a chubby kid who was being bullied by neighborhood kids. Normally that would be considered a good thing by most people here. Now it is seen as evidence that he is a cold blooded monster, imo.

Reading here I am on the opinion that this is all one sided.
I do not get that there will be justice, just a pound of flesh for a pound of flesh.
so sad, so wrong. so uncivilized, so unnecessary.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

I get that he thought this, but what he thought and what the reality were were two different things. to trayvon this was quite random and probably terrifying. he did the right thing to face GZ (according to gavin de becker's gift of fear and so far in life I've found no reason to think this was bad information) would he be correct to simply face him and start throwing punches? no....but I dont think that is how this went down and we only have GZ's version that this is what happened because trayvon is dead.

If GZ were threatening him, calling him names, etc...then I could see TM being terrified. I see absolutely no way that he would be "terrified" just because he thinks someone is following him. He easily could have run home if he were that desperate and fearful.

 

[marlame]

I don't believe that GZ was stalking TM but if he was are you saying, in your opinion, that it would legally entitle TM to physically attack GZ?

My post was in response to another post. And, in that context what I said was he had the right to defend himself against his stalker. (I happen to believe GZ was Stalking Trayvon based upon FL Statute.)

Put in context to your question...
Under FL Law, I feel IF GZ was stalking Trayvon...YES! Trayvon had the right to physically stop his stalker by using “non-deadly force” (which is force that will not usually cause death or great bodily injury) to protect himself or stop the crime of "stalking". Let's be clear...Trayvon's first instinct was not to get physical given he asked GZ WHY he was following him.

As for GZ attacking/shooting/killing Trayvon and using a self-defense claim, I don't feel it applies given FL statute states that in order to take advantage of its protections you can’t be engaged in unlawful activity when the "incident" occurs.

Again, it is my "opinion" GZ following Trayvon rose to the level of STALKING which is unlawful and Trayvon had the right to defend himself. Additionally, Trayvon was NOT engaged in unlawful activity when the "incident" occured.

:truce:
JMHO~

 

[Horace Finklestein]

I mentioned in a previous thread that I have heard people, in person, discussing what to say to police to support a self-defense claim when you have shot someone dead. They mean in cases where there is an intruder or robber (although these kinds of people may also be especially sensitive about who is a threat). They say that (1) you need to be sure to kill the person, because otherwise it's his word against yours and he could even sue you, and (2) you need to be careful how you explain the situation to police.

I just did an search for these kinds of discussions online, and was able to find some on forums about defensive carrying of firearms. I don't think I am allowed to link to such sites, but I wanted to throw the idea out there that reading through such discussions might be informative in understanding a certain mindset.

Again, these are mostly talking about cases where someone has either broken into the house or has physically confronted them, but there is an attitude. For instance, they suggest that you contact an attorney ahead of time, so in the event you do shoot someone dead, you can immediately call that person and they will understand the scenario.

I'm not saying that GZ was involved in these kinds of discussions, necessarily, but it wouldn't surprise me, considering his interest in neighborhood watch, etc.

All JMO.

But yet you have no problem planting that idea in peoples' heads?

 

[csziggy]

GZ hit the speed dial to 911, right? Didn't they tell him we don't need you to do that? (Follow the person that GZ has decided to report as "suspicious")

Does GZ ignore 911 and start following again? If so, that's a repeated incident.

According to the version of GZ's story that the lead detective told Tracy Martin, GZ followed TM more than once:

Investigator Chris Serino then took Martin to another room and told him Zimmerman's version of events. Sanford police have stopped talking to reporters about the case, and Serino has never spoken publicly about his role in it, but here is how Martin recalls what Serino said:

"He told me Zimmerman's story was that Zimmerman was of course following him and that Trayvon approached his vehicle, walked up to the car and asked Zimmerman, 'Why are your following me?' Zimmerman then rolls his car windows down, tells Trayvon 'I'm not following you.' He rolls his car windows up.

"Trayvon walks off. Zimmerman said he started running between the buildings. Zimmerman gets out of his car. He comes around the building. Trayvon is hiding behind the building, waiting on him. Trayvon approaches him and says, 'What's your problem, homes?' Zimmerman says 'I don't have a problem.'
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/usa-florida-shooting-trayvon-idUSL2E8F31ZX20120403

If that version is believed, GZ followed Trayvon, Trayvon confronted him about it, GZ lied to Trayvon, then continued to follow him. If this version is true, I would not blame Trayvon for getting defensive. He was being stalked.

Repeated, malicious, and threatening stalking, IMO.

 

[LinasK]

That they didn't need for him to. That implies that they weren't forbidding him from following TM, no matter how much some people want it to mean that. Why not just say "do not follow him"?

So now we're going to blame the dispatcher because he wasn't direct enough??? It's pretty clear and obvious to most people that what the dispatcher said equals DON'T Do that!!! The phrase "we don't need" is just a more polite, less direct way of saying the same thing. In Japanese culture, being so direct is frowned upon as too aggressive...

 

[Horace Finklestein]

So now we're going to blame the dispatcher because he wasn't direct enough??? It's pretty clear and obvious to most people that what the dispatcher said equals DON'T Do that!!! The phrase "we don't need" is just a more polite, less direct way of saying the same thing. In Japanese culture, being so direct is frowned upon as too aggressive...

I'm not blaming them I am just stating the fact that the dispatcher did not explicitly tell him to not follow TM.

 

[CHICANA]

Hi I'm totally behind here, and at work so I can't catch up but did want to make a comment before I get working. Some folks would have us believe that Trayvon doesn't "qualify" to be advocated for as a child, because he was or was not "helpless" enough or something???

I"m sure a lot of us have heard of the CASA program--Court Appointed Special Advocates...they advocate for children in the court systems...anyone have any documentation stating they only assist children who they deem helpless, or do they serve all children under the age of 18?
TIA

They serve children that are currently involved in the juvenile of family court system.

 

[cityslick]

My post was in response to another post. And, in that context what I said was he had the right to defend himself against his stalker. (I happen to believe GZ was Stalking Trayvon based upon FL Statute.)

Put in context to your question...
Under FL Law, I feel IF GZ was stalking Trayvon...YES! Trayvon had the right to physically stop his stalker by using “non-deadly force” (which is force that will not usually cause death or great bodily injury) to protect himself or stop the crime of "stalking". Let's be clear...Trayvon's first instinct was not to get physical given he asked GZ WHY he was following him.

As for GZ attacking/shooting/killing Trayvon and using a self-defense claim, I don't feel it applies given FL statute states that in order to take advantage of its protections you can’t be engaged in unlawful activity when the "incident" occurs.

Again, it is my "opinion" GZ following Trayvon rose to the level of STALKING which is unlawful and Trayvon had the right to defend himself. Additionally, Trayvon was NOT engaged in unlawful activity when the "incident" occured.

:truce:
JMHO~

BBM

According to a lawyer (Hornsby), that is not the law though or at least that how I understood as he explained it.