17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #29

[AngelWings444]

I agree this is possibly the answer. Unless there is another picture I have not seen, the one picture that I did see looked to be a puncture wound. Definately not a wound that would make me think he should have been in fear for his very life. Makes me think of the Caylee-reaching-for-the-door-handle picture.

Maybe he was wearing a hat that had a buckle on the back or even the snap kind. Maybe the buckle or snap caused the puncture wound? If the picture is to be believed (and I am not convinced at all), there is a distinct line above the wound.

 

[Emeralgem]

Today was all about swinging public opinion. If you read the comments under most news stories, especially the bloody shot, it has been highly effective.

GZ is not talking to the jury pool. First and safest route out of this is to get a judge to say it meets the SYG rule. He is making a statement for the judge.

This being a high profile case not everyone is going to want to take the heat of setting him free and may pass the buck just like the SA did when they overcharged him with murder 2. Manslaughter is a much more reasonable charge but the public would have been outraged with anything less than a murder charge.

Overcharging Casey Anthony backfired and let the jury say they didn't PROVE their case. Common sense may tell you what Casey did but the jury said they didn't PROVE it. I don't think they have a murder 2 case. GZ called the police, witnesses put TM on top of the struggle, now their is a photo of GZ's injuries, he is going to get on the stand and say he is sorry but what he BELIEVED at the time was different.

Unless he takes a deal, I think he walks.

IMHO..Pathetic and as I see it right now, something "hinky" if going on at every level. JMHO

 

[jaded cat]

No, I don't think that. If you think your head is bleeding, naturally you are going to put your hand back there and feel to see if you feel liquid coming out of your head.

Interesting, since there is no indication the blood was smudged by someone putting their hands on the wounds.

 

[jaded cat]

Using your post as a jumping point.... everyone seems to be hanging a lot of this case on following TM in defiance of a police order. The 911 operator is not only not a police officer, what they actually said is "we don't need you to do that."

If they had the authority to give a citizen a legally binding order it wasn't even worded as one.

I have done many things/chores/favors for someone that said they didn't NEED me to do it.

Had TM gotten the gun away from GZ and shot GZ it would be relevant, say GZs family tried to sue someone, GZ would have been on notice that he his actions were not requested, not on behalf of the police department, yada yada

I think way too much weight is being given to the GZ didn't follow an order from the police. The police weren't there yet and the dispatcher didn't TELL him not to do anything. Just that it wasn't needed.

Using that a an example doesn't really work. When I call 911 to report someone is having a heart attack, the dispatcher will then begin walking me through the steps to revive that person. By your logic, I should just disregard what I'm being told because that person doesn't have the authority to tell me what to do.

 

[jjenny]

Using that a an example doesn't really work. When I call 911 to report someone is having a heart attack, the dispatcher will then begin walking me through the steps to revive that person. By your logic, I should just disregard what I'm being told because that person doesn't have the authority to tell me what to do.

But if you do disregard what dispatcher tells you, they are not gonna lock you up. In other words, it's not illegal.

 

[Cher352]

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_36

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_120

One of Romine's cases is a prime example. In 2008, his client, Charles Podany, noticed a truck speeding past his house in Thonotosassa, where his children play in the front yard. Podany fetched his handgun and rode his bicycle down the street to the house where the truck was parked to get a license plate number.

He found himself in a confrontation with Casey Landes, 24, who had been a passenger in the truck. Landes, legally drunk, attacked the smaller Podany and wound up on top of him. Podany drew his weapon and fired twice. The second bullet entered Landes' left cheek and struck the back of his skull, killing him instantly.

Podany was charged with manslaughter. But before trial, a judge ruled that despite initiating the confrontation by arming himself and riding his bicycle to the speeder's house, Podany was in a place he had a legal right to be and he was carrying a weapon he had a legal right to carry. He found that Podany feared for his life and had the right to defend himself with deadly force.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...ts-those-who-go-far-beyond-that-point/1222930

I liked this part on that last link:

"There is not an exception to the law that says if you're doing something stupid, or risky, or not in your best interest, that 'stand your ground' doesn't apply," Romine said.

 

[Cher352]

I am late in this discussion tonight, but I wanted to say Nancy Grace surprised me tonight. She seemed to give Frank Taffee more respect (even though she cut his mic, lol) and less to Daryl, the Martins attorney. She was critical of the Prosecutor and said she felt sorry for GZ, hmmm. I wasn't swayed though, my opinion is still the same.

I'm still up or should I say up again.

Haven't watched her much on this case but did tonight. Shocked me too I expected her to screaming about GZ and his defense the whole time but not so.

 

[Cher352]

Interesting, since there is no indication the blood was smudged by someone putting their hands on the wounds.

Could be one of the neighbors (same one that took the pic?) brought out a damp towel to him to clean his head and this is the pic after that was done but blood was still flowing.

Sooner or later we will get the answers just wish it was sooner.

 

[Cher352]

But if you do disregard what dispatcher tells you, they are not gonna lock you up. In other words, it's not illegal.

Plus I will say this again....
If we are having that much disagreement whether it was a binding order or not I expect getting 12 jury members to agree on it will be just as hard.

 

[Karmady]

Using that a an example doesn't really work. When I call 911 to report someone is having a heart attack, the dispatcher will then begin walking me through the steps to revive that person. By your logic, I should just disregard what I'm being told because that person doesn't have the authority to tell me what to do.

You could very easily disregard those "instructions" and face no liability whatsoever if the person died. If the person is a loved one, of course, you would probably follow the "instructions" regardless. And if you are a decent human being who assumes the best about people, you would probably also follow the "instructions." If the person dies, however, by having rendered aid you have now put yourself in a situation of being responsible for the outcome. And, depending on the character of the deceased's family members, you could very easily find yourself in a big world of hurt because, in a life and death situation, you followed the "instruction" of a person with, at best, the qualifications of your average HS grad.

A police dispatcher has absolutely ZERO authority. And whether or not they said "you don't need to do that" is about as irrelevant as it can be to this case, imo.

And even for those who insist that it is relevant, there have been cases decided about whether a bona fide police officer's "instructions" were an "order" or merely a "request." Yes, the court does care about semantics to that degree. And when it comes down to brass tacks, a dispatcher saying we don't need you to do that is not going to be something the prosecutor hangs its case on. And if they try, they will lose. jmo

 

[jaded cat]

You could very easily disregard those "instructions" and face no liability whatsoever if the person died. If the person is a loved one, of course, you would probably follow the "instructions" regardless. And if you are a decent human being who assumes the best about people, you would probably also follow the "instructions." If the person dies, however, by having rendered aid you have now put yourself in a situation of being responsible for the outcome. And, depending on the character of the deceased's family members, you could very easily find yourself in a big world of hurt because, in a life and death situation, you followed the "instruction" of a person with, at best, the qualifications of your average HS grad.

A policy dispatcher has absolutely ZERO authority. And whether or not they said "you don't need to do that" is about as irrelevant as it can be to this case, imo.

And even for those who insist that it is relevant, there have been cases decided about whether a bona fide police officer's "instructions" were an "order" or merely a "request." Yes, the court does care about semantics to that degree. And when it comes down to brass tacks, a dispatcher saying we don't need you to do that is not going to be something the prosecutor hangs its case on. And if they try, they will lose. jmo

I don't know what kind of training 911 dispatchers have in your area, but in Austin, TX and in Salem, OR, the dispatchers go through extensive training for medical issues. 911 dispatchers help people deliver babies, save lives by instructing people what to do, as in the case of a heart attack and calm people down who have been involved in accidents. < mod snip >

 

[jaded cat]

Plus I will say this again....
If we are having that much disagreement whether it was a binding order or not I expect getting 12 jury members to agree on it will be just as hard.

If you are not going to listen to the 911 dispatcher, why did you call them in first place?
:waitasec:

 

[Karmady]

If you are not going to listen to the 911 dispatcher, why did you call them in first place?
:waitasec:

To dispatch a police car, obviously. That is their function.

 

[SoBeCzar]

Don't know if anyone has posted this. Photos of Zimmers bloodied head taken minutes after police arrived at the shooting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/20/trayvon-martin-case-new-p_n_1440283.html

 

[impatientredhead]

I liked this part on that last link:

"There is not an exception to the law that says if you're doing something stupid, or risky, or not in your best interest, that 'stand your ground' doesn't apply," Romine said.

Everyone has the right to defend themselves, the stupid and unlikable included.

 

[Karmady]

I don't know what kind of training 911 dispatchers have in your area, but in Austin, TX and in Salem, OR, the dispatchers go through extensive training for medical issues. 911 dispatchers help people deliver babies, save lives by instructing people what to do, as in the case of a heart attack and calm people down who have been involved in accidents. < mod snip >

Here's an example of a Florida police dispatch want-ad. You will note the complete absence of any qualification or responsibility for rendering life-saving assistance, to your point, or providing "expertise" about what to do when you believe that you are witnessing criminal behavior, to mine.

http://www.suncoastjobs.com/main/job_posting_detail/2363

 

[Sensei]

You could very easily disregard those "instructions" and face no liability whatsoever if the person died. If the person is a loved one, of course, you would probably follow the "instructions" regardless. And if you are a decent human being who assumes the best about people, you would probably also follow the "instructions." If the person dies, however, by having rendered aid you have now put yourself in a situation of being responsible for the outcome. And, depending on the character of the deceased's family members, you could very easily find yourself in a big world of hurt because, in a life and death situation, you followed the "instruction" of a person with, at best, the qualifications of your average HS grad.

A police dispatcher has absolutely ZERO authority. And whether or not they said "you don't need to do that" is about as irrelevant as it can be to this case, imo.

And even for those who insist that it is relevant, there have been cases decided about whether a bona fide police officer's "instructions" were an "order" or merely a "request." Yes, the court does care about semantics to that degree. And when it comes down to brass tacks, a dispatcher saying we don't need you to do that is not going to be something the prosecutor hangs its case on. And if they try, they will lose. jmo

That is not true,

If you have NO medical training at all, and you attempt to render first aid as instructed by a police dispatcher or even no instructions at all, then you are covered by the good samaritan law....you cannot be sued for a bad outcome, you have no medical training and are not expected to know what you don't know.

If however you do have medical training then you are expected to adhere to all applicable practice standards and if you do something wrong then you could in fact be sued.

 

[rotterdam]

Here's an example of a Florida police dispatch want-ad. You will note the complete absence of any qualification or responsibility for rendering life-saving assistance, to your point, or providing "expertise" about what to do when you believe that you are witnessing criminal behavior, to mine.

http://www.suncoastjobs.com/main/job_posting_detail/2363

I noticed , they have an "in house training" program that must be completed within 6 mos. Wonder what that is for:waitasec: May be basket weaving?

 

[BritsKate]

I noticed , they have an "in house training" program that must be completed within 6 mos. Wonder what that is for:waitasec: May be basket weaving?

:floorlaugh: And an 83 page training guide...but I can't find the section on basket weaving! :banghead:

http://www.doh.state.fl.us/demo/ems/DOH-Version3_10-10-11.pdf

 

[MsCharlieChan]

I liked this part on that last link:

"There is not an exception to the law that says if you're doing something stupid, or risky, or not in your best interest, that 'stand your ground' doesn't apply," Romine said.

There are decisions in Florida law that seems to work against GZ:

“... A killing is not justifiable or excusable if the defendant brought about the necessity ...without being reasonably free from fault in provoking the difficulty in which the killing occurred.” Lovett v. State, 30 Fla. 142, 11 So. 550, 17 L. R. A. 705; Ballard v. State, 31 Fla. 266, 12 So. 865; Padgett v. State, 40 Fla. 451, 24 So. 145.

GM's defiance and the fast velocity of running toward TM while still on the "911" call indicates a mindset that provoked the difficulty...

The incident took place in an area that GZ had no need to be. This path did not lead back to GZ's truck, which is where he claims he was going. If he just wanted to see the address of TM's block, there were closer town homes to view the numbers on.

Neither GZ or TM's girlfriend reported an appropriate greeting upon conversing with TM. The first words out of GZ's mouth should have been something like, "Hey. I'm president of the Neighborhood Watch... Do you live around here?"

GZ is guilty of the same thing he claimed the officer he battered was guilty of. He said the plainclothesman who was arresting his friend never identified himself as LE... or else he would never have hit him.

Likewise, he didn't identify himself to TM. He chased down an innocent minor, possibly forced the kid into a Stand Your Ground moment, and then killed him -- when he didn't have to.

Trayvon screamed in terror for too long a time before that gun finally went off. GZ should have let TM keep screaming, as a way of helping alert the neighbors & authorities.

It all adds up to provocation. And depravity. GZ's self-defense claim shouldn't stand.