17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #31

[jaded cat]

She is stating this after the fact and all the news reports that have have been misleading at times. We have no idea if her statements now coincide with what she she stated at the time of the shooting. My biggest question about her (besides her expertise at discerning which person was authoritative since she had never heard either one speak before) is why does a witness to a shooting that has an indisputable shooter need an attorney?

Nowadays, most people snag an attorney when they're involved in something like this. Anything to do with the police, shootings, death. I know I would. Unfortunately, we can no longer depend on all of LE to be honest and without an agenda. I say this as someone with a BiL in LE. I mentioned before that when we had a discussion and I told him I would immediately hire a lawyer, he smirked at me and said I was guilty as far as he was concerned. Is that really the attitude we want in LE when we have done nothing wrong? :what:

 

[Emeralgem]

JMO/IMO

GZ called in a suspicious person. The question is, what was it about Trayvon that made the armed volunteer patrolman suspicious?

Iced tea? Skittles? No, I think we can agree that would be absurd.

Hooded sweatshirt? Travon's race? Bingo....and here's where GZ paints himself into a corner with profiling.

BBM..Now lets break that down.. Why would he be suspicious of someone who had a hooded sweatshirt on even if the hood was pulled up on the person's head? It was raining and also according to FT (as well as some others) GZ did not say "effin c----" that night (pertaining to TM), he said "effin cold"... FT also stated on either JVM or NG that GZ's coat was zipped up, reason being...It was cold..
So WHY would GZ be suspicious of someone who was wearing a hoodie in order to protect themselves from the wet and cold? Was it Trayvon's race? JMHO

 

[Dr.Fessel]

IMO I think what's going on is you have a number of folks in that town, high ranking folks, who truly do not believe that the police department did anything wrong that night. They are trying to divorce themselves from the incident (which to me is hilarious). They are also probably going to fall back on AC's own comments during the presser when she credited SPD, saying the investigation never stopped from day one.

And that is the problem with this case. Yes, you have someone that committed the act, GZ, and he will have his day in court, but the issue are far reaching beyond GZ. It reminds me a little (although there is no comparison of the cases) of the Penn State scandal. Yes, Sandusky is the one that committed the horrible acts, but the reach of the crime go so far beyond the perp, from Paterno on up.

That is what got my interest in the case.

 

[HiHater]

Could you expand on your opinion on how you think he tried to do this? Do you believe that he pulled his gun out and told TM to stay put, TM said no and the fight ensued? Thanks.

GZ tells us exactly what he plans to do. Then he did it.

"These a&sholes, they always get away"
"effing punks/c*ons"
"Are you following him?" "yes"
"Can you just have them call me to see where I'm at?"

He didn't want this one to get away, he followed him, and he continues to follow even after being told not to. Why would he follow someone, or chase because he's already said twice that the person ran, if he has no intention to catch them?

Whether or not he pulled out the gun first is up for debate. I have a hard time believing that you are able to unholster a gun while someone sits on your chest and beats the crap out of you, smothers you, and repeatedly smashes your head...

He may have just tackled him, he could have grabbed him...who knows? The point is that his actions caused the struggle.

JMO MOO IMO

 

[HiHater]

JMO/IMO

GZ called in a suspicious person. The question is, what was it about Trayvon that made the armed volunteer patrolman suspicious?

Iced tea? Skittles? No, I think we can agree that would be absurd.

Hooded sweatshirt? Travon's race? Bingo....and here's where GZ paints himself into a corner with profiling.

Exactly. He didn't describe any suspicious activities to dispatch. Walking around...staring at GZ...well, GZ you're staring at him! :what:

Seems like Trayvon realized he was being watched and then reacted by running...

JMO MOO IMO

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

What's next for George Zimmerman, Sanford Florida video at this link

http://www.cbsnews.com/1770-5_162-0...t+for+Zimmerman&tag=srch&searchtype=cbsSearch

at the 1:40 mark the interviewer asks Chief Lee about how reasonable was GZ' fear if he's the one with the weapon...we've yet to establish, paraphrased....


and MOM states GZ will not accurately recall the sequence of events so we look into the forensics...So, I believe they realize GZ gave different accounts and will have to look further....

I also believe if GZ keeps getting donations, he might not get that indigent status he so needs...

 

[Gin]

No, if someone was kidnapping a child under this law you can shoot them in the back period.

JMO/IMO
But you better have the facts.....

What if an annoying, busybody neighbor doesn't recognize a Dad carrying his screaming, tantrum throwing 2 year old? Dad trying to put child in car, ignores "orders" from annoying neighbor...annoying neighbor is armed, "certain" he's watching a kidnapping, and he's darn gonna stop it, with deadly force.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

GZ tells us exactly what he plans to do. Then he did it.

"These a&sholes, they always get away"
"effing punks/c*ons"
"Are you following him?" "yes"
"Can you just have them call me to see where I'm at?"

He didn't want this one to get away, he followed him, and he continues to follow even after being told not to. Why would he follow someone, or chase because he's already said twice that the person ran, if he has no intention to catch them?

Whether or not he pulled out the gun first is up for debate. I have a hard time believing that you are able to unholster a gun while someone sits on your chest and beats the crap out of you, smothers you, and repeatedly smashes your head...

He may have just tackled him, he could have grabbed him...who knows? The point is that his actions caused the struggle.

JMO MOO IMO

He was a criminal, just like the ones that always get away.

Why was he running after him? Because he was going to get away.........

Dispatcher: He's running, which way is he running?
GZ: Down towards the other entrance of the neighborhood.

 

[LambChop]

I believe the point was/is that sanford has had problems way longer then this past chief who had been in office for 10 months.
http://mysanfordherald.com/view/full_story/12863351/article-Sanford-names-Lee-as-new-police-chief
To facilitate the hiring process, the city hired The Waters Consulting Group of Dallas to conduct a nationwide search and narrow down the candidates. The final interview process included a panel of Sanford residents appointed by the city commission and a panel of outside law enforcement experts.

looks like they did a thorough job. jmo

But if they had to let a previous chief go because of public pressure in the way the chief reacted to a certain situation who is to say this city commission was not looking for the same qualifications that they had with the previous chief. Why would a chief not stand by the recommendations of his own homocide detective? Wasn't the problem with the chief because he wanted homocide to stop their investigation? I'm not sure why he was asked to step down??? jmo

 

[luvmygarden]

Exactly. He didn't describe any suspicious activities to dispatch. Walking around...staring at GZ...well, GZ you're staring at him! :what:

Seems like Trayvon realized he was being watched and then reacted by running...

JMO MOO IMO

Totally agree
Even TM Running was a cause for suspicion to GZ.
If it was a police officer watching he would find that suspicious.
If it was a perp watching he would find catching a running prey a challenge.
I think in GZ's MIND GZ wore both hats. TM was in a no-win situation once GZ made that call, GZ was meeting a mental challenge.

 

[Just K]

If someone who is larger than you is beating on you, I'd say that is reasonable grounds for believing that you are in grave danger.

Well, I would believe that. Perhaps you might believe something else.

Whatever happened to a good ol' fist fight...this is just ridiculous...

GZ had a gun with ammunition meant to kill. TM had his only wits and his body...he weighed less than GZ and TM had NO WEAPON...GZ stalked TM...

The scales were tipped in GZ's favor from the very beginning!

GZ starts a fight but will not fight fair. IMO
That is who GZ is...he starts $h!t and then blames the person who ends up having to defend themselves.

I would bet my bottom dollar that anyone who was ever accused of assaulting GZ knows that GZ was the instigator.

 

[LambChop]

JMO/IMO
But you better have the facts.....

What if an annoying, busybody neighbor doesn't recognize a Dad carrying his screaming, tantrum throwing 2 year old? Dad trying to put child in car, ignores "orders" from annoying neighbor...annoying neighbor is armed, "certain" he's watching a kidnapping, and he's darn gonna stop it, with deadly force.

Though not with deadly force it has already happened in the past. Father's have been reported as attempting to kidnap a child because the child was out of control. Better to be safe than sorry but I'm sure it was aggravating for the Dad. lol

 

[impatientredhead]

Nowadays, most people snag an attorney when they're involved in something like this. Anything to do with the police, shootings, death. I know I would. Unfortunately, we can no longer depend on all of LE to be honest and without an agenda. I say this as someone with a BiL in LE. I mentioned before that when we had a discussion and I told him I would immediately hire a lawyer, he smirked at me and said I was guilty as far as he was concerned. Is that really the attitude we want in LE when we have done nothing wrong? :what:

Thats why i would have an attorney right out of the gate.

LE does an amazing and dangerous job 99% of the time, but for the 1% that make up the corrupt or politically driven cases I will take my own best interest into account 100% of the time.

 

[Just K]

Agreed... The Law says:
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force ~
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).


In other words should Zimmerman be acquitted the taxpayers will have to reimburse him for attorney fees, court cost, loss of income and other incurred expenses. Plus he'll now have a civil suit in which he can file suit against the State for violating a law he was protected under...IMO

The law is no good. Even the State risks high losses with this type of law.

 

[Sensei]

Can you just have them call me to see where I'm at?"

This right here, this is the absolute indicator that GZ had NOT broken off his pursuit of Trayvon and had no intention of doing so. He did not say,"My truck is XXXX and I am going to get an address but I'll be right back to the truck" He specifically asked that LE call him to let him give the location when they arrived, since he didn't know where Trayvon was going....

Lambchop was the first to ask what was Zimmerman attempting to accomplish...I think the answer to that question answers why this all happened to begin with, IMO what he was attempting to accomplish was to stop Trayvon (the percieved criminal) from getting away, and he was going to do that either physically or by menacing him with the gun..
IMO JMHO and stuff.

 

[LambChop]

No, if someone was kidnapping a child under this law you can shoot them in the back period.

Wouldn't that also kill the child????

 

[impatientredhead]

Were TM's parents out for the evening when this happened?
Not that it matters but when I was looking at some of the maps last night of how close TM was to the door to home, I was just curious if he was going back to an empty house.

That is a lot of commotion in the neighborhood to not draw your attention, especially as a parent of a teen I would think. And when they called in the morning to say he was missing there has not been any mention of the previous night incident? Although obviously LE was right out there with the photos taken the night before.

Just curious, and while TMs phone may have been password protected and it might not have helped, the new thing for emergency contacts is ICE. In Case of Emergency, they are asking people to start entering an ICE entry in your phone for emergency workers to quickly reference. Both for notifying them, but also getting your identity and medical history as quickly as possible.

The company my hubby works for has this as a requirement, and at least that portion of your phone is not suppose to be locked while on their property.

 

[Adrienne37]

George Zimmerman’s attorney files written not guilty plea..

Zimmerman, who is charged with second-degree murder, has also entered a plea of not guilty to the charges against him.

The motion also requests a trial by jury.

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/george-zimmermans-attorney-files-written-not-guilt/nMggT/

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/4-24-12a.pdf

 

[Just K]

I think we are dealing with semantics here, "provoke", "confront" may have similar meanings to some. I still believe that GZ tried to detain TM in some way, which would be illegal, because TM was not breaking the law.

In Virginia, iF GZ so much as forced TM to move from one spot to another it is called "Abduction."
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...47+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
§ 18.2-47. Abduction and kidnapping defined; punishment.

A. Any person who, by force, intimidation or deception, and without legal justification or excuse, seizes, takes, transports, detains or secretes another person with the intent to deprive such other person of his personal liberty or to withhold or conceal him from any person, authority or institution lawfully entitled to his charge, shall be deemed guilty of "abduction."

B. Any person who, by force, intimidation or deception, and without legal justification or excuse, seizes, takes, transports, detains or secretes another person with the intent to subject him to forced labor or services shall be deemed guilty of "abduction." For purposes of this subsection, the term "intimidation" shall include destroying, concealing, confiscating, withholding, or threatening to withhold a passport, immigration document, or other governmental identification or threatening to report another as being illegally present in the United States.

C. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any law-enforcement officer in the performance of his duty. The terms "abduction" and "kidnapping" shall be synonymous in this Code. Abduction for which no punishment is otherwise prescribed shall be punished as a Class 5 felony.

D. If an offense under subsection A is committed by the parent of the person abducted and punishable as contempt of court in any proceeding then pending, the offense shall be a Class 1 misdemeanor in addition to being punishable as contempt of court. However, such offense, if committed by the parent of the person abducted and punishable as contempt of court in any proceeding then pending and the person abducted is removed from the Commonwealth by the abducting parent, shall be a Class 6 felony in addition to being punishable as contempt of court.

(Code 1950, §§ 18.1-36, 18.1-37; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1979, c. 663; 1980, c. 506; 1997, c. 747; 2009, c. 662.)

 

[grammieto5]

Even if I stipulate that there was no evidence that TM threw the first punch either (which I dont necessarily agree with) how can a jury believe that beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ murdered TM?

Seriously??? Isn't it enough GZ admitted he shot Trayvon? Or has GZ changed that story also.