17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #24

[Elley Mae]

http://www.tampabay.com/incoming/whats-next-in-the-zimmerman-case/1224622

Within 15 days, prosecutors must start providing Zimmerman's attorney with "discovery," the first witness statements, police reports, and photos that will be used as evidence against him.

 

[Cher352]

With the info about GZ calling Nejame last month to try to retain him, I again question how involved (if they were ever involved) the two folks who ran that circus presser the other day were with the case?

I have heard from everyone else except GZ. How many of these people have really spoke to GZ and how many are just trying to grab their 15 minutes of air time?

For some reason I think Sonner and Uhrig were GZ's father choice but GZ didn't agree. GZ act of calling Nejames and then picking O'Mara makes me believe he did not want a lawyer that was going to inflame people.

My reasoning is based only on what I have seen of them on TV and their websites. Uhrig law firm is strictly a Criminal Defense law firm whereas O'Mara is a Criminal and Family law practice.

My impressions I got from what I seen on tv is that Uhrig is a tough talking lawyer that would pull out all the stops to win no matter what it takes. The all or nothing type that would fight hard but sure to tick a lot of people off.

Whereas, IMO, O'Mara is a soft spoken, low profile lawyer who will probably easily accept a plea bargain to a lesser charge. From what I have seen of him O'Mara would be better to ease the tension in this case.

AGAIN just :moo:

 

[jjenny]

I am thinking self defense is what will be used. If it is known as we know here that in the position of "night watchman" it is illegal to carry your weapon why would the lawyer use SYG? We know that he was on his way to target from early on so I am thinking that the lawyer will probably stick with the target story. That way their story will not have changed. jmo

This is just plain wrong. He had a legal right to carry weapon. So it was not illegal for him to carry his weapon.

 

[jjenny]

Is there FL precedent on disobeying a 911 operator? This would be most helpful in determining if GZ has the "legal" right to be where he was.

What precedent could there be? It's not illegal to not follow what 911 operator tells you. And in some cases what 911 operator tells someone could be dangerous. I just read about a guy who was told by 911 operator to go back and he was killed when he went back. So blindly following what someone tells you (even if that person is a 911 operator) is not always a good idea.

 

[mikeysmommom]

Kind of. Except the guys he shot were trying to mug him. The facts here per the call to police by Zimmerman, what was found on Trayvon's body, the statements by the girlfriend, do not at all indicate Trayvon was a looking for trouble. Instead, he was a kid trying to get home in the rain. Big difference to me.

Also, Goetz illegally carried a gun while Zimmerman did not.

But, Zimmerman and Goetz may be similar personalities, IMO and I do understand the comparison.

ETA: I can't be sure about my last statement, in retrospect. Goetz had been assaulted before and I think he was scared, and not merely hunting "bad guys" as a self-appointed cop wanna' be.

Zimmerman had also been assaulted before when he lived in VA.He was around 17 or 18 at the time.

 

[songline]

I am thinking self defense is what will be used. If it is known as we know here that in the position of "night watchman" it is illegal to carry your weapon why would the lawyer use SYG? We know that he was on his way to target from early on so I am thinking that the lawyer will probably stick with the target story. That way their story will not have changed. jmo

This is how I understand it correct me if I am wrong.
IF you are silenced to carry. you can carry it 24/7 CONCEALED.
you can take it to work, to the bathroom, in your car, to bed with you wherever.
So being any watchmen, Capitan, day, night, not on duty, on duty...
He can carry it.

BUT ON THAT DAY - AS WE KNOW IT...
George was going to the store, he saw something.
It does not mean he has to go home and get disarmed.
It does not mean he cannot follow.
It does not mean if he is told "we do not need you to do that"
that he is told "DO NOT DO THAT".

Now I want to hear what really happened in those 2 minutes
that we do not know.
Along with other things that we do not know.

But from what I see - GZ was overzealous, not a bad guy
BAD guys do not volunteer to tutor small black children for free,
Or watch the neighborhood for free.

IF GZ was a bad guy he would go somewhere and bully some strangers and shoot them.
Sort of what happend in Tolido recently.

 

[Elley Mae]

This is just plain wrong. He had a legal right to carry weapon. So it was not illegal for him to carry his weapon.

What I am saying is as "night watchman" he was not suppose to be armed. As a citizen he does have that right as he was. My point is the lawyer is probably not going to say he was serving as night watchman.

 

[MsCharlieChan]

For all the relief among civil rights activists over the arrest, legal experts warned there is a real chance the case could get thrown out before it ever goes to trial because of the "stand your ground" law.

Here's the problem with that...

1. What people are missing is Trayvon was invoking his right to "stand HIS ground."

2. If Trayvon had had a gun on him, it would have been lawful for him to shoot the guy that was following him, who came unreasonably close up on his person.

3. Unfortunately, Trayvon had no gun... But doesn't he still have the right to "stand his ground" with the only weapons that were at his disposal?

4. It is the State's job to ensure that Trayvon's rights are advocated. So, the trial shouldn't be thrown out prematurely. Doing so would be dismissing Trayvon's rights as a U.S. citizen.

Trayvon invoked his "stand your ground" right, albeit unsuccessfully because he didn't have a gun. The judicial system needs to get to the bottom of WHY Trayvon was compelled to act defensively.

Did he feel threatened? Yep, and you would have, too. Let some strange man start stalking behind *you* on a dark, rainy evening. If you can imagine it, you'd probably feel terror.

In Florida, you'd have the right to shoot and kill him. If you didn't have a gun, you should have a right to at least ask "Do you have a problem?" or "Why are you following me?"

If the follower had stayed in his car as they'd been advised to do, Trayvon wouldn't have needed to use his "stand your ground" right (unsuccessfully).

 

[grammieto5]

That's not true. You have no duty, under the SYG, to attempt to flee. That's why it's called Stand Your Ground. Any place you can legally be, and are not committing a crime, you have the right to Stand Your Ground and shoot to kill if someone is threatening you with serious bodily injuries or death.

There's no clause that you have an obligation to "get away" if you can.

Until this case I had never heard of this Stand Your Ground law. Retreat to the Wall meant if I understand it right, before you shoot you must retreat as far as you can. Now it means you do not have to retreat, you can just shoot and tell the police you believed you were in fear for your life. Of course if it were a home invasion it would be different, you would be in fear for your life, there would be no place for you to go. But in an open space, with only two people there, one dead, the shooter has the right under the SYG law to kill and then just tell the police he was in fear for his life, that's it, no questions, no evidence taken, just the shooter's word???? This law is very confusing. GZ was in basically an open field, he could have ran behind any one of those buildings if he was afraid, but he knew he didn't have to.

 

[JeannaT]

What I am saying is as "night watchman" he was not suppose to be armed. As a citizen he does have that right as he was. My point is the lawyer is probably not going to say he was serving as night watchman.

Hmm. Even if he was patrolling the grounds as a "Crime Watch Captain" -which he wasn't, he'd still have a legal right to carry his gun.

The crime watch program probably doesn't approve, but that doesn't make it illegal.

 

[Cher352]

I refuse to even peek at the "Sound Off" thread! I'm scurred to see what in the world ya'll say down there. :floorlaugh:

Exactly the way I feel too! :doorhide:

 

[songline]

It certainly means you can call the cops and keep an eye on someone, and if they assault you and continue to threaten your life/health, you can shoot them.

The problem here is there were no witnesses to the beginning of the physical battle.

That is sad... with all the windows there, nobody saw the beginning??
I am not so sure I want to believe that.
I am inclined to think that people are too afraid to come out and speak.
I do hope someone will come and speak undercover.

 

[jjenny]

What I am saying is as "night watchman" he was not suppose to be armed. As a citizen he does have that right as he was. My point is the lawyer is probably not going to say he was serving as night watchman.

He might not supposed to carry a gun as a watch captain, but it doesn't make it illegal if he has a legal weapon.

 

[Elley Mae]

Hmm. Even if he was patrolling the grounds as a "Crime Watch Captain" -which he wasn't, he'd still have a legal right to carry his gun.

The crime watch program probably doesn't approve, but that doesn't make it illegal.

Hmmm...bbm that is the part I am not sure about.

 

[JeannaT]

Here's the problem with that...

1. What people are missing is Trayvon was invoking his right to "stand HIS ground."

2. If Trayvon had had a gun on him, it would have been lawful for him to shoot the guy that was following him, who came unreasonably close up on his person.

3. Unfortunately, Trayvon had no gun... But doesn't he still have the right to "stand his ground" with the only weapons that were at his disposal?

4. It is the State's job to ensure that Trayvon's rights are advocated. So, the trial shouldn't be thrown out prematurely. Doing so would be dismissing Trayvon's rights as a U.S. citizen.

Trayvon invoked his "stand your ground" right, albeit unsuccessfully because he didn't have a gun. The judicial system needs to get to the bottom of WHY Trayvon was compelled to act defensively.

Did he feel threatened? Yep, and you would have, too. Let some strange man start stalking behind *you* on a dark, rainy evening. If you can imagine it, you'd probably feel terror.

In Florida, you'd have the right to shoot and kill him. If you didn't have a gun, you should have a right to at least ask "Do you have a problem?" or "Why are you following me?"

If the follower had stayed in his car as they'd been advised to do, Trayvon wouldn't have needed to use his "stand your ground" right (unsuccessfully).

I don't disagree with that, really. Trayvon also had a right to stand his ground, although at the age of 17 he wouldn't have a right to carry a gun, I don't believe.

But he does have a right to defend himself if he is in real fear for his life or health.

And so does GZ. So the one with the best weapon wins.

This wouldn't have happened if either of them had behaved in a humble, agreeable way. But neither did.

 

[JeannaT]

Hmmm...bbm that is the part I am not sure about.

I'm pretty sure about it. He was a volunteer in a crime watch program, and doesn't have to give up his rights to be in that program.

And he wasn't patrolling anyway.

It seems clear to me, by the way he's being treated with the charges, that carrying his gun at that time wasn't a crime. IMHO.

 

[mikeysmommom]

That is sad... with all the windows there, nobody saw the beginning??
I am not so sure I want to believe that.
I am inclined to think that people are too afraid to come out and speak.
I do hope someone will come and speak undercover.

Can you imagine what would happen if a white person saw the whole thing and if it was favorable to GZ,if they saw TM attack first.All the hate directed at GZ would come their way.Not so sure many would speak up JMO.Unless their identity was kept from the public and out of all records.

 

[katydid23]

That is sad... with all the windows there, nobody saw the beginning??
I am not so sure I want to believe that.
I am inclined to think that people are too afraid to come out and speak.
I do hope someone will come and speak undercover.

I don't think anyone saw the very beginning because it was so quick. Nobody usually looks unless there is a bit of a commotion already going on. So what we really need to know is who took the first punch or who shoved who first.

 

[songline]

For some reason I think Sonner and Uhrig were GZ's father choice but GZ didn't agree. GZ act of calling Nejames and then picking O'Mara makes me believe he did not want a lawyer that was going to inflame people.

My reasoning is based only on what I have seen of them on TV and their websites. Uhrig law firm is strictly a Criminal Defense law firm whereas O'Mara is a Criminal and Family law practice.

My impressions I got from what I seen on tv is that Uhrig is a tough talking lawyer that would pull out all the stops to win no matter what it takes. The all or nothing type that would fight hard but sure to tick a lot of people off.

Whereas, IMO, O'Mara is a soft spoken, low profile lawyer who will probably easily accept a plea bargain to a lesser charge. From what I have seen of him O'Mara would be better to ease the tension in this case.

AGAIN just :moo:

I think you are right about Urlig as being tough, I was surprise he did not stick with him.
I do think he needs tough.
But the other guy Sonner as I see it was going to lose this case.
The only reason he came on the case is he was the first guy to say YES.
O'Mara IMHO is too soft for this case, but a good attorney. JMHO

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Exactly the way I feel too! :doorhide:

Honestly there is not to much difference in the threads. I just made a post down there thinking I was up here. We are all good peeps just trying to figure it out.