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

[Sensei]

That isn't true, though - there is actually no known evidence either way to say which one of the two people was the attacker. During Gilbreath's testimony at the bond hearing, he stated that they had no evidence at all of which one of them threw the first punch. So to say that "TM responded to the provocation with aggression" is speculation only.
I also disagree that "a provocative act is not the same as an agressive act," in that it that makes the false assumption that provocation can't be physical (it can), or that aggression is ONLY physical (it's not). Besides, it has been discussed here quite frequently that SYG does not require that physical assault or injury be experienced in order to feel threatened and in fear of one's life. Confrontation by an armed assailant could very well make one fear for one's life, I think.

Based on the evidence that is available thus far, I would say that the prosecutor is responding to the fact that there are numerous inconsistencies with the timing and content of George Zimmerman's story, questionable intent on his part, contradictory information from witnesses, etc. Besides, wouldn't pressing charges without proper evidence and good faith in their case make the prosecutor subject to serious repercussions and possible disbarment? (That last question is a real question on my part - the prosecution can NOT knowingly bring a frivolous charge, or they open themselves up to numerous issues, right? Does anyone know more about that? Info is appreciated!)[/QUOTE]



BBM Google Micheal Nifong or Duke Lacrosse and you will get a really good idea of what may happen to a Prosecutor that brings unfounded charges, they can be disbarred and even face criminal charges.

 

[CHICANA]

JMO/IMO
Except that the role of neighborhood watch is to WATCH. It's not to accost, challenge, or demand. Z had no business bothering Trayvon at all. If you see something, call the (real) police. No neighborhood watch group endorses profiling, challenging, or following.

What if following prevents a crime ? If a child use abducted, should a person just stand still and say " I don't know where they went" ?

 

[Sensei]

And I cannot stop thinking if only he'd prefaced his question with "I'm with the Neighborhood Watch.....", we probably wouldn't be here.

I wonder what GZ's response was to the question - Did you identify yourself?

LinasK - Have you ever been in a position where you identified yourself with your Neighborhood Watch? TIA.

IMO and just MO, Trayvon was alone on the street, at night, in the rain, in a strange neighborhood with no weapon, walking. There is no reason to believe that he was in a particularly aggressive mood, that he was angry or combative towards anyone that night or even later. George Zimmerman was in his vehicle and in his neighborhood and armed, and quite certain that Trayvon was a crminal.

We have been told over and over that a person does not have to suffer injuries that SYG does not require them, that all that is necessary is that the person have a reasonable fear for their life and their safety. While it is (as we have been told) NOT a crime to follow someone, the very act of following a teenager in the dark, in the rain, openly, making it clear that you are following and watching them, first in a vehicle and then on foot, is in my opinion quite enough to provoke a very reasonable fear of their life and safety. Confronting someone is not a crime, but confronting someone that you have already followed, and continued to follow after they have made an attempt to get away from you (Even GZ claimed he was running) is in my opinion quite enough to cause a person and especially a teenager in the dark and in the rain, in a strange neighborhood on an empy street, that is certainly more than enough to cause them to have a reasonable fear for their safety and their life....If Trayvon had been armed and shot GZ, then he would have had a very reasonable SYG defense and been within the law to do so.

The fact that he was unarmed, and afraid for his life might (I don't personally believe it) but might have provoked Trayvon to make an aggressive move, but that should not negate the fact that he was in fear of his life, and standing his ground, the fact that he is now dead is ample proof that his fear was justified and eminently reasonable. IMO JMHO and stuff.

 

[ScubaTwinn]

JMO/IMO
Except that the role of neighborhood watch is to WATCH. It's not to accost, challenge, or demand. Z had no business bothering Trayvon at all. If you see something, call the (real) police. No neighborhood watch group endorses profiling, challenging, or following.

Yes, I agree. What I meant was - since GZ did question him, why couldn't he have said what direction he was acting under?

 

[LambChop]

BBM

IMO this section is factually wrong.

Unless someone has a restraining order impeding their ability to follow someone, it is legal to follow someone else if you have a legitimate reason, even if that reason ultimately turns out to be based on faulty information or impression. I can follow you and you can follow me. I can ask you questions and you can ask me questions. You can decline to engage me in conversation, and I can ignore your line of inquiry. That is the intersection of freedom of speech and freedom of movement. IMO

Aren't the rules different for a minor?

 

[ScubaTwinn]

What if following prevents a crime ? If a child use abducted, should a person just stand still and say " I don't know where they went" ?

Okay, I'll go with it's okay to follow to make sure a child isn't being abducted. But they shouldn't be pulling out a gun when they do it.

 

[LambChop]

Yes, I agree. What I meant was - since GZ did question him, why couldn't he have said what direction he was acting under?

You also have to wonder what was GZ's intent on following TM? What did he hope to accomplish? He had no authority to stop and detain TM so what was the point. LE was called, they were on their way. If TM was up to no good LE would have caught him at the back gate. TM was on foot he had no other way to get away. jmo

 

[Sensei]

What if following prevents a crime ? If a child use abducted, should a person just stand still and say " I don't know where they went" ?

Following someone is NOT against the law, we have been beaten over the head with that ad infititum, following someone who has abducted a child is in a different category and realm, yes, if ever in that situation and I could do so without endangering the child or others then I would do it. What I do not agree with is when following crosses the line from simply following, to making the person that you are following afraid for their safety....If you follow someone openly, even aggressively, and persist after their attempts to evade you. If you follow someone in a dark deserted parking garage, or on a lonely street at night in the rain and make them afraid for their life and safety, then they have every right to secure their own safety by using whatever force necessary.

If George Zimmerman was familiar enough with SYG to invoke it, then he should have been sensible enough to know that making someone afraid for their safety (even an A$#@^% or a criminal, or a punk kid) gives them the right to react with force.

under no theory of this incident did Trayvon have LESS rights than George Zimmerman IMO JMHO and stuff.

 

[sherryk]

Zimmerman's lawyer, family and friends can say and do whatever they feel they should to try and repair his image in the media but one fact keeps glaring at me as if it were a bright neon sign.

Zimmerman chose to ignore instructions that he had received and in doing so made a very deadly decision that night. NONE of this would have happened if he had done what he had been told.

Zimmerman would not be charged with 2nd degree murder for killing Trayvon.

Trayvon would not have died that night.

If only Zimmerman had followed those instructions that night then all of this would have been avoided.

MOO

Is there a document that I have not seen that shows that he did NOT follow orders, as in not to persue? Is that speculation. There have been described as witnesses that have confirmed that Zimmerman was approaching his vechicle. I just would like to see witness statements in writing that he did not retreat.. I could them fairly base an informed decision as to rather that is in fact accurate or not accurate. One witness the youngster that stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman.. parent hired attorney and now stating that the witness statement was somehow incorrect.

Alot of people that do not know the facts that could either ruin a innocent mans life and an injustice to Travon's parents by NOT knowing what DID or DID not happen that night assuming they want to know the truth and not have a notion that they will believe what they choose to.

The entire matter is so sad when a life is lost, that being any human.
I repectfully respect your opinion on the matter.
Much thanks for the input.

 

[Elley Mae]

Aren't the rules different for a minor?

This is where I think it is a confusing thing. Once you or I see "someone" that grabs our attention to watch them because we feel they are doing something wrong to the point of calling authorities and then seeing they are a teen do you just stop. ? Do you just call off to call? idk

 

[Gin]

What if following prevents a crime ? If a child use abducted, should a person just stand still and say " I don't know where they went" ?

A private citizen might opt to follow.

 

[LynnM]

What if following prevents a crime ? If a child use abducted, should a person just stand still and say " I don't know where they went" ?

That doesn't change the role of a Neighborhood Watch volunteer. It's to watch and report. I think seeing an individual kidnap a child would result in doing more, yes, as a human being.

Zimmerman did not see Trayvon commit a crime. He wasn't running away with a child in his arms. He wasn't even running away with burglary loot. He was walking back from the 7-11 looking around. Zimmerman thought he was a criminal about to commit a crime, one who was running for the back entrance. Well then, in his mind he HAD prevented a crime. That wasn't good enough for him.

 

[CathyinTexas]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-chief-martin-case-remains-scrutiny-16200283

>as city commissioners want to wait for the results of a federal investigation to decide if they will accept Chief Bill Lee's resignation.

It could take months before Sanford city commissioners have the information they say they need.

That's because the U.S. Department of Justice is expected to make a thorough analysis of how the city's police department handled the investigation into the Feb. 26 killing of the 17-year-old Martin, including studying when officers arrived to the scene of the shooting to the actions that Lee and other officials took in their ultimate decision not to arrest Zimmerman. Lee remains on paid leave.<

>t's a challenge. ... We'll move forward to see if we can get a speedy investigation from the United States Department of Justice or some other entities. That's what I heard from the city commission."<

I can't imagine how the small town of Sanford can get the U.S Department of Justice to speed up the investigation, and it seems improper, imo.

 

[Sensei]

Is there a document that I have not seen that shows that he did NOT follow orders, as in not to persue? Is that speculation. There have been described as witnesses that have confirmed that Zimmerman was approaching his vechicle. I just would like to see witness statements in writing that he did not retreat.. I could them fairly base an informed decision as to rather that is in fact accurate or not accurate. One witness the youngster that stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman.. parent hired attorney and now stating that the witness statement was somehow incorrect.

Alot of people that do not know the facts that could either ruin a innocent mans life and an injustice to Travon's parents by NOT knowing what DID or DID not happen that night assuming they want to know the truth and not have a notion that they will believe what they choose to.

The entire matter is so sad when a life is lost, that being any human.
I repectfully respect your opinion on the matter.
Much thanks for the input.

It was 18 seconds from the time that we hear the vehicle door open, and GZ running, to the Dispatcher telling him that he did not need to follow anyone, and his response of OK. So why would it take him minutes to go back to his vehicle. and minutes later he still wasn't in his vehicle? Why was he found between the buildings and almost on Trayvons doorstep after the shooting where the altercation took place? The claim that he was getting an address, ( not the address that Trayvon was AT), just AN address, which he could have drivem to get, or could have gotten from the front of the buildings makes no logical sense. That idea was simply thrown out there to attempt to make it appear that he had actually broken off pursuit but the fact of where the altercation took place negates that claim IMO JMHO and stuff.

 

[Sensei]

This is where I think it is a confusing thing. Once you or I see "someone" that grabs our attention to watch them because we feel they are doing something wrong to the point of calling authorities and then seeing they are a teen do you just stop. ? Do you just call off to call? idk

If I see someone breaking into the neighbors house, yes, I continue watching and call the law...but in this instance what George Zimmerman saw was a young man walking. Even HE didn't claim that he saw Trayvon looking into cars, or trying the doors, or looking into windows...he may have felt this kid was suspicious and up to no good, but he did not have a single thing to base that on except a gut feeling and the fact that he didn't recognize him. The fact that MOST people don't arbitrarily follow people that they feel might be suspicious is an excellent indication that what he was doing was not a rational thing for anyone to do.

 

[Elley Mae]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-chief-martin-case-remains-scrutiny-16200283

>as city commissioners want to wait for the results of a federal investigation to decide if they will accept Chief Bill Lee's resignation.

It could take months before Sanford city commissioners have the information they say they need.

That's because the U.S. Department of Justice is expected to make a thorough analysis of how the city's police department handled the investigation into the Feb. 26 killing of the 17-year-old Martin, including studying when officers arrived to the scene of the shooting to the actions that Lee and other officials took in their ultimate decision not to arrest Zimmerman. Lee remains on paid leave.<

>t's a challenge. ... We'll move forward to see if we can get a speedy investigation from the United States Department of Justice or some other entities. That's what I heard from the city commission."<

I can't imagine how the small town of Sanford can get the U.S Department of Justice to speed up the investigation, and it seems improper, imo.

To me, jmo its improper to have the doj looming over this "active" case. If they are still looming during trial would that be fair. not to me jmo

 

[CathyinTexas]

JMO... I do not know all the facts and evidence from any possible witnesses that can be accurate, forensics, just facts that are unknown at this time.

I do believe in innocent until proven quilty. The charge is a bondable offence, perhaps overcharged in this case to please the public of for good reason.. we or I do not know.

Two sides to every story especially based on opinions and rumors .. and then somewhree inbetween the truth.. I am going to follow the case and look at facts as they come out.

There seems to be some that wanted only the justice system to play their part, now that the accused has envokes his rights through the court system is it still not good enough for some.. I read or heard a comment on tv... where did he get the bond with family limited means... let me tell you if i was in jail.. my family would pawn, ask exteneded family, cash in life insurance, burial plots, and most DEFFINALTY take donations... so the money for bond does not matter where it came from.. he posted bond and that is that.. how dare those who will never be happy with the justice system make issue of how he posted bond.. does it matter.. he posted it as most people with family who cared would used every and all avenues to raise funds.

I simply want those on both sides to look at the justice system and not to try and make different rules on Zimmerman based on emotions or a witch hunt..

It is a misfourtune and possible a proven crime.. but we know vert little about what happened.. we where not there.. and the little bits of information on NON EMERGENCY police call... we can only speculate on the time and context of all that was said... we were not there.. not one single one of us.

I just want a fair trial.. not to put an innocent man in prison, however I do support putting a quilty verdict person in jail..

just my opinion.. just want people to look at this from a LEGAL standpoint.. however freedom of speech and expession of feelings for support or non support of Zimmerman are heartfelt and we are entitiled to that vs countries who do not have that right.

Not meant offend anyone.. not at all... i want justice as much as anyone else.

God Bless the Martin Family for the loss of their child, God Bless the Zimmerman family for threts and a possible sentence that and situation that possibly will destroy that family also.. God Bless the potesters and hate, God Bless all of us in America.

I am scared to post this due to probally a thread with much opinion againt Zimmerman. Please respect my opinion as I do respect anyone on this forum.. due to the fact that anyone on this forum CARES enough to post their opinion or theory.

Thank you if you read this and understand just the legal side and emotions on both sides...

I am just glad that, for whatever reason, the State of Florida is addressing this through the justice system as our constitution intended. There would not be so much ire if it had been done this way in the beginning. We probably would never have heard of Trayvon's killing because shootings happen everyday in our country. jmo

 

[LynnM]

Following someone is NOT against the law, we have been beaten over the head with that ad infititum, following someone who has abducted a child is in a different category and realm, yes, if ever in that situation and I could do so without endangering the child or others then I would do it. What I do not agree with is when following crosses the line from simply following, to making the person that you are following afraid for their safety....If you follow someone openly, even aggressively, and persist after their attempts to evade you. If you follow someone in a dark deserted parking garage, or on a lonely street at night in the rain and make them afraid for their life and safety, then they have every right to secure their own safety by using whatever force necessary.

If George Zimmerman was familiar enough with SYG to invoke it, then he should have been sensible enough to know that making someone afraid for their safety (even an A$#@^% or a criminal, or a punk kid) gives them the right to react with force.

under no theory of this incident did Trayvon have LESS rights than George Zimmerman IMO JMHO and stuff.

When I was a teen, I was walking back home from the store about a half mile away when a strange man started following me in a car, slowly. It scared me and I started to run. He parked his car on the side of the road and got out and ran after me. I knew I couldn't get home in time but fortunately I was able to run to an acquaintance's house and he ran back to his car and took off. I suppose the man had broken no laws, but no one will ever convince me he wasn't about to. If he'd overtaken me, would it have been okay for me to kick him in the groin, or would I have to have waited until he hurt me to do that? If I had kicked him, should he have shot me dead?

So many people want to see this from Zimmerman's perspective -Trayvon looked suspicious, he was unknown, he ran, there had been 'a lot' of burglaries. I look at it from Trayvon's perspective. Here's a man watching him then running after him. He's not in a police uniform, he doesn't show a badge, he doesn't have a security uniform on, he isn't in a marked security vehicle, he doesn't identify himself as a neighborhood watch volunteer. What else can he be but a bad guy?

 

[CathyinTexas]

That is not what the law is about though. You can confront anyone you feel like, that does not entitle them to attack you. As long as you are not threatening them directly.

If the scenario unfolded as GZ confronting TM, and then TM attacking him, CZ would have every right to use lethal force to defend himself according to the law. He was not required to back off or run away in that scenario.

I think what is confusing people is that a provocative act is not the same as an agressive act. According to the evidence we have so far GZ was behaving in a provocative manner, but not in an aggressive manner. What appears to have happened is that TM responded to the provocation with aggression, which is what led to him being dead.

But, in that scenario GZ would not have done anything wrong according to Florida law. Now, is the stand your ground law a wise law? That is a different question. IMO it is a foolish law, the use of deadly force should allways be subject to judical examination no matter what the circumstances. If someone really is defending themselves legitimately then it should be clear.

Based on the evidence we know so far, I would say that the prosecutor is responding to public sentiment rather than the facts of the case. Probably what will happen is that eventually the charges will be dismissed, but by dragging GZ through this process the prosecutor is trying to make a statement.

I think the moral of this story is that no matter how provocative someone may be, you should not attack them. Especially in a state like Florida, because once you do that you open the door for just about anything.

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.

 

[LambChop]

I hope LE is ready to go after justice for all victims hurt by the idiots that resort to "real"
violence when things don't go their way.

Actually that sounds as if you are describing exactly what could have happened here. GZ's call to dispatcher clearly shows he is in a aggitated state by seeing TM walking through HIS community looking as if he is up to no good. So much so that he decides to get out of his car and at the point he is told he does not have to do that he says "okay" but still continues to follow according to the timeline. Going after someone is an aggressive act when you have already admitted you feel the person is a danger, which GZ has admitted on the taped discussion with the police dispatcher. Further he expects there will be a problem because he brings his gun. If GZ assumed he was acting in the capacity of the neighborhood watch program he knew he was not suppose to follow and was not suppose to have the gun. If GZ was acting on his own and willingly brought the gun he expected to run into trouble because he armed himself. GZ was already in aggressive mode.

So TM meeting up with someone who had already pre-determined what he was up to and TM not knowing why this guy was following him what would we expect from TM after he said "Why are you following me?" GZ asks "What are you doing here?" I can only imagine the answer TM gave was sarcastic and that may have set GZ off. If TM tried to run (Gilbreath's claim a woman saw two people running past her condo) it stands to reason GZ may have chased him given the fact he had followed TM and found him after losing sight of him and was determined not to let TM get away. If GZ was chasing he was the aggressor. And it appears that is what happened because at no time did GZ claim he was being chased down by TM.

I also believe the whole time they were wrestling on the ground TM was trying to get away from GZ and GZ was holding onto him trying to keep him from getting away. I do think it was GZ who first asked John to help him because he wanted someone to hold onto TM while he got back onto his feet. jmo