17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #35

[AngelWings444]

That's very confusing.

Let me try to clear up the confusion, sorry.

IMO - Trayvon was acting like most teenagers on their FB/MySpace pages. There is no indication that Trayvon was a violent person or had a criminal record of violence.

GZ has a criminal history, some being violence. He shot Trayvon to death. GZ says some not nice things on the 911 tape. His social media pages only confirm what many have thought of him based on his own record and actions. I believe his Facebook/MySpace pages will be used against him.

 

[mercuriod]

FYI, it is a law that a pin lock or charlie bar be installed in all patio doors - all front exterior doors must have a privacy lock. He should not have had to tell anyone to do these things. The thugs breaking in are to blame, they had no right going into someone's home and taking things that didn't belong to them. People leave their patio doors open, with the screen shut during nice weather, do they not have a right to do that without worrying about thugs? Yes, they have that right - the thugs are the ones without the rights on the private property and the police don't have time to keep an eye on it 24/7. JMO

Really? Can you post the FL statute that states that a pin lock or charlie bar must be installed in all patio doors? Damn don't call the police on my complex because no one I know has either.

 

[Gaia713]

I have not read any unfounded accusations about TM.

If you're talking about comments made in regards to the jewelry found in his backpack, I don't think those comments are without basis. Why would a teenager be in possession of 12 pieces of women's jewelry, a watch, and a screwdriver that could be used as a burglary tool? :waitasec: You tell me...

You mean a screwdriver that can be used to loosen a screw? Obviously what he had on him wasn't enough to warrant an arrest. And where is the evidence that TM was violent?

 

[AngelWings444]

Is it not considered violent to break someone's nose and bash their head onto cement - and not letting them retreat?

We do not know this happened!

 

[pcrum12]

So you would be looking for someone to belong to a fight club or something to be considered violent?

:tyou:

 

[Boytwnmom]

GZ followed TM with a loaded firearm after declaring he was sick of these a$%holes getting away. This evidences a clear intent to follow TM with the aim of detaining him until the police arrived. Otherwise there is no reason to follow him. Thus, he had the only motive to force an encounter which he did when he popped up again after TM thought he had lost him as he told his GF. GZ doesn't bother identifying himself then either, still assuming TM is a dangerous criminal, so why bother. So, he got close enought to have TM ask why he was following him, what was the purpose if nto to prevent TM from getting away? He wasn't just seeing where TM was going-he forced a confrontation. As far as I can tell, GZ is and always was, the actor here, who decided TM's criminal nature and then his fate by taking a loaded weapon to subdue and detain this dangerous guy who was sooooo suspicious that he couldn't name ONE actual suspicious thing TM was doing.

To me, this is, and always was, a simple story. GZ, fueled by whatever delusions, sees TM and decides he's a criminal and calls 911. But then he sees this criminal moving quickly away from him so he decides to follow because he's sick of these a%^holes getting away. He's going to subdue and detain TM. But TM doesn't want to be detained by the crazy guy with the gun and fights for his life to no avail as no matter his pleading GZ decides to shoot (no way is GZ screaming for his life even using his own story which was the last part of the struggle was him choking on blood while TM held his hands over his nose and mouth). He then frisks TM for stolen goods and weapons but finds only iced tea and skittles and then realizes he needs a new story...self defense...this kid was AFTER ME...yeah, that's it, this crazy kid, for no reason, attacked me and tried to kill me. Sorry, that "story" makes no sense and is unsupported by anything except GZ's lying mouth.

We don't know that GZ attacked TM.


TM was on top of GZ, according to an eyewitness and IMO, he was yelling for help for almost a minute, trying to get away from TM. IMO, that would be a reasonable attempt to avoid further danger or either of them.

JMO :moo:

 

[Lovelymountains]

Yes, I would be livid too. But mostly, I would be more livid that any of that info was released to the media about a minor. And I would not rest till the culprit (s)that released that private info to media was removed from the school. Just a matter of principle.
Guess the Martins are a lot nicer than me.

I wondered about that too because I don't think it's legal to release school records to the media, or anyone else for that matter. There are so many Federal laws concerned with privacy these days, surely there is a law about making school records public. If the school released this information about Trayvon, I think the Martins have a case.

 

[mercuriod]

Well I have no idea about FL but here in KY, my nephew was caught with paraphernalia and he was NOT arrested but suspended for 3 whole days. He was also caught with a pocket knife he forgot to leave at home at another time and the Police was called and he was charged. That was a big deal! In my naive way of thinking at the time, I was definitely questioning the difference. Lol.

Here in FL we have the whole REAL tough on drug crime thing going, why there was a case not too long ago where a 18 yr girl got sentenced to 25 years for selling a hand full of prescription pills. (Hides now for bringing up Misty Cummings)

 

[zenreaper]

There werer LOTS of posts since I was last on, so if anyone has anything I missed and want an answer to, please let me know.

Okay, I am seeing a lot of, "Well, they would do this..." and such in regards to how actions would or should have occured, and it got me to thinking about a couple of things.

First, on following or stopping someone, FIRST, and FOREMOST, there is NO LAW that prevents you from following someone. If you do it too much to the wrong person, they can get a restraining order or a protective order, but in the abscence of that, there is no law preventing it. Thus, GZ violated NO law by following TM.

On the confrontation, lets try a little visualization. GZ is sitting in his car, sees a person he doesn't know, walking with his hand in his pants and calls the police. The person (we now know as TM) approaches his vehicle, stares at him, then takes off running. Yes, we know this because GZ reported it to the dispatcher. Of course, he COULD have been lying...but WHY? Where is the gain in lying at this point? So he follows him, again, COMPLETELY within his rights.

On a side note, I saw it asked WHY the POLICE could have stopped him. Remember, it is a GATED community, so you do NOT have the same rights as you would walking down Main St.

So GZ follows TM and loses sight of him, or doesn't lose sight, whatever you want to believe. The verbal confrontation starts.

Now, I am a gun owner (I own several) and I have a CCL and DO carry. I have a tactical holster that fits up under my arm. So according to THEORIES, GZ reaches inside his jacket for what HE says was a phone, but the TM supports say TM thought was a gun.

Now, if I go for my gun (which I have done), it is a MAXIMUM of 1.5 seconds before I have it out, leveled and am setting the sight picture (lining up what I am going to shoot at). So IF GZ was going for his gun, and got hit BEFORE he could get it out, then OBVIOUSLY TM was advancing on him and was closer than 1.5 seconds worth of travel time. So about 6 feet. Now GZ is on edge. He is watching for the person he was following, what are the odds that he gets within 6 feet of him before GZ NOTICES? TM asks why are you following me. GZ is reaching into his jacket. TM assaults GZ (PLEASE don't try denying this, it HAPPENED, he has the marks). Now if GZ had been reaching for the GUN, as some of you have suggested, how does TM hit him? Assuming TM got ONE good shot into his face, he STILL have a GUN in his hand. TM is, IMO, slamming his head on the ground. Now if GZ went for the gun, and was HOLDING it, one of two things stop him from shooting earlier. One, it was knocked free, which we know it wasn't, two, he still has it in his hand, and TM gets shot SOONER. So the gun didn't come out until TM was on top of him and slamming his head into the ground.

Sorry, but as a SHOOTER, who CARRIES a gun, the sequence of events simply do not add up to ANYTHING other than TM assaulting GZ, and getting shot for it.

As for TM's actions and Facebook and Tweets, etc, they ARE evidence, as they ARE a picture of how this young man intended to portray himself to the world. His message, regardless of how screwed up is was, is one of being a . That is a lifestyle choice that comes with ACTIONS< such as violently confronting someone you think is demeaning you. The drug paraphenialia is another thing, if there is evidence that TM was dealing drugs (which I believe there is), THAT could have colored TM's view of what GZ wanted. Perhaps TM thought GZ was a rival drug dealer out to harm him.

Make of it what you will, but the ONLY way you come up with GZ attacking TM is if you question most of the CURRENT evidence, and lay your entire bet on evidence that has not been released.

 

[zenreaper]

"Unless a person is in a consistently threatened position (such as a police officer) imo there is no need to carry a concealed weapon."

That is the GREAT thing about this country, you don't NEED a reason to carry a gun, its your RIGHT.

 

[LambChop]

Think it may come up in the trial?

I would think there would have to be some relevance. jmo

 

[LambChop]

That is the GREAT thing about this country, you don't NEED a reason to carry a gun, its your RIGHT.

That is right. It's how and when you choose to use it, that's the issue. jmo

 

[jaded cat]

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/...usands-expected-at-trayvon.html#storylink=cpy

n October, a school police investigator said he saw Trayvon on the school surveillance camera in an unauthorized area &#8220;hiding and being suspicious."

Trayvon&#8217;s backpack contained 12 pieces of jewelry, in addition to a watch and a large flathead screwdriver, according to the report, which described silver wedding bands and earrings with diamonds.

Trayvon was asked if the jewelry belonged to his family or a girlfriend.

&#8220;Martin replied it&#8217;s not mine. A friend gave it to me,&#8221; he responded, according to the report. Trayvon declined to name the friend.

That suspension was followed four months later by another one in February, in which Trayvon was caught with an empty plastic bag with traces of marijuana in it. A schools police report obtained by The Miami Herald specifies two items: a bag with marijuana residue and a &#8220;marijuana pipe.&#8221;

The punishment was the third for the teen.

bbm

Has the actual report from the school been published? Cuz it's not like the Miami Hearald is a bastion of accurate reporting. First we heard about the baggie, now it's a empty baggie and a pipe. The jewelry makes 2. What is the third?

 

[rossva]

BBM

In the dark, in the rain, when the NBA All Star game is about to start? Walking in the rain, not covering your face till you notice some one is watching you?

I just don't get how this whole 'looking about' and 'looking at houses' translates into being suspicious. I walk in my neighborhood nearly every evening. I look around at all my surroundings. I enjoy the looking at the homes, lawns and gardens, the kids playing, etc. Am I to walk with my head to the ground as to not appear suspicious?

 

[badme102]

The girlfriend also said TM "lost" GZ.

Obviously GZ continued to look for TM and found him--TM's dead and it was no where near GZ's truck.

The ONLY reason GZ asked the dispatcher to give LE his cell number, so he could tell them where HE was, is because he was going to find this effing punk a**hole and he was not getting away this time. Nobody can argue that fact. (Well, duh, badme, of course they can )

GZ is the killer here, and I am very confident that the state will prove their 2nd degree murder case against this murderer beyond ANY and ALL reasonable doubt.

 

[pcrum12]

There werer LOTS of posts since I was last on, so if anyone has anything I missed and want an answer to, please let me know.

Okay, I am seeing a lot of, "Well, they would do this..." and such in regards to how actions would or should have occured, and it got me to thinking about a couple of things.

First, on following or stopping someone, FIRST, and FOREMOST, there is NO LAW that prevents you from following someone. If you do it too much to the wrong person, they can get a restraining order or a protective order, but in the abscence of that, there is no law preventing it. Thus, GZ violated NO law by following TM.

On the confrontation, lets try a little visualization. GZ is sitting in his car, sees a person he doesn't know, walking with his hand in his pants and calls the police. The person (we now know as TM) approaches his vehicle, stares at him, then takes off running. Yes, we know this because GZ reported it to the dispatcher. Of course, he COULD have been lying...but WHY? Where is the gain in lying at this point? So he follows him, again, COMPLETELY within his rights.

On a side note, I saw it asked WHY the POLICE could have stopped him. Remember, it is a GATED community, so you do NOT have the same rights as you would walking down Main St.

So GZ follows TM and loses sight of him, or doesn't lose sight, whatever you want to believe. The verbal confrontation starts.

Now, I am a gun owner (I own several) and I have a CCL and DO carry. I have a tactical holster that fits up under my arm. So according to THEORIES, GZ reaches inside his jacket for what HE says was a phone, but the TM supports say TM thought was a gun.

Now, if I go for my gun (which I have done), it is a MAXIMUM of 1.5 seconds before I have it out, leveled and am setting the sight picture (lining up what I am going to shoot at). So IF GZ was going for his gun, and got hit BEFORE he could get it out, then OBVIOUSLY TM was advancing on him and was closer than 1.5 seconds worth of travel time. So about 6 feet. Now GZ is on edge. He is watching for the person he was following, what are the odds that he gets within 6 feet of him before GZ NOTICES? TM asks why are you following me. GZ is reaching into his jacket. TM assaults GZ (PLEASE don't try denying this, it HAPPENED, he has the marks). Now if GZ had been reaching for the GUN, as some of you have suggested, how does TM hit him? Assuming TM got ONE good shot into his face, he STILL have a GUN in his hand. TM is, IMO, slamming his head on the ground. Now if GZ went for the gun, and was HOLDING it, one of two things stop him from shooting earlier. One, it was knocked free, which we know it wasn't, two, he still has it in his hand, and TM gets shot SOONER. So the gun didn't come out until TM was on top of him and slamming his head into the ground.

Sorry, but as a SHOOTER, who CARRIES a gun, the sequence of events simply do not add up to ANYTHING other than TM assaulting GZ, and getting shot for it.

As for TM's actions and Facebook and Tweets, etc, they ARE evidence, as they ARE a picture of how this young man intended to portray himself to the world. His message, regardless of how screwed up is was, is one of being a . That is a lifestyle choice that comes with ACTIONS< such as violently confronting someone you think is demeaning you. The drug paraphenialia is another thing, if there is evidence that TM was dealing drugs (which I believe there is), THAT could have colored TM's view of what GZ wanted. Perhaps TM thought GZ was a rival drug dealer out to harm him.

Make of it what you will, but the ONLY way you come up with GZ attacking TM is if you question most of the CURRENT evidence, and lay your entire bet on evidence that has not been released.

:yourock:

 

[Lovelymountains]

That is the GREAT thing about this country, you don't NEED a reason to carry a gun, its your RIGHT.

I'm not sure of that. My late husband had a license to carry and he had to have a reason for having it. His profession could lead one to believe he was carrying valuables. That was the reason. But that was in PA and maybe it varies from state to state.
But whatever, I truly do believe this is a great country.

 

[rossva]

At what broken law do you draw the line? Marijuana may be no big deal to you, but it is against the law. Did George Zimmerman start making those bad decisions throughout his life at such a young age as Martin appears to have?

I guess your sentence stating pretty much everyone you know is an illegal drug user explains your position here. Of course you'd assume the person who performed a lawful act of self defense was in the wrong.

According to teachers and adults that knew Trayvon well, he was not the rebellious type. The "no limit" name is from a rap group. And OMG, MARIJUANA, OMG, OMG, OMG. Wait, let me go get the police, I think pretty much everyone I know is going to have to go to jail.

Was he perfect, no. He just turned 17, his judgement is not always what it would be if he were older. Did he do anything on that day in Sanford that caused someone to shoot him? Not the way that the pieces are fitting together, IMO. Have you seen the pictures from his Mother's birthday, just before his death? He was wearing a Reese's shirt, he went horseback riding with his Mom and brother, and to dinner with the family. He's a decent, caring kid from everything that I have seen and heard about him. His parents should be proud. He comes from a middle class family, his mother worked for the Housing Authority in Miami-Dade County ever since she graduated college. She was in management when she left after her son was killed.

GZ, on the other hand, seems to have been making bad decisions throughout his life, and he is well into adulthood. People keep getting him out of trouble and he keeps falling back in. MOO.

 

[m00c0w]

I'm not sure of that. My late husband had a license to carry and he had to have a reason for having it. His profession could lead one to believe he was carrying valuables. That was the reason. But that was in PA and maybe it varies from state to state.
But whatever, I truly do believe this is a great country.

It varies from state to state. Some (a lot, actually) are "shall issue", which means that no reason is necessary.

 

[Boytwnmom]

as well as an age issue. There's also evidence that fits the background of the person which is relevant to the crime commiteed. GZ profiled TM which is consistent with his issues with groups of minorities as he expressed on his website. He also brags about getting off of his felonies such as beating his ex-hoe. That shows a disregard for the rule of law and a propensity for violence-he never says he didn't commit the crimes alleged, only that he got off and had them reduced to misdemeanors.

This is all relevant to the issue of who is more likely responsible for what happened. To me, all the evidence and these peripheral matters contribute to my conclusions regarding GZ, that he was of the opinion that rules don't apply to him, that he's better than others, that he's being victimized by criminals, that he lumps members of a group together if a member of that group has wronged him in his mind, that he will resort to violence without apology but with excuses blaming the other guy etc. GZ is a grown man, unemployed and unable to finish even a two year educational degree-yet he sees himself as "better" than someone like TM who he assumes is a criminal based on no actual behavior but rather appearance.

TM is a kid who will NEVER grow up while GZ may not want to grow up, at least he had the chance. He's likely angry that he hasn't amounted to more as he supposedly wants to be a judge but has obviously fallen far short. That's likely partly why he wanted to be a hero and "catch" TM, who was definitely a criminal in GZ's mind. But that too didn't work out and it's TM's fault. TM attacked him, GZ, for no reason, while GZ was innocently walking back to the car as instructed by the operator...sure.

Nothing I see of TM and his background shows any violent propensity like GZ has. TM may have talked tough but it was in the abstract. He was not bragging about committing violent crimes and getting away with them. He was mostly foul-mouthed and vulgar about women which is totally disgusting and unacceptable but in no way related to a likelihood that he was prone to violently attacking people. His alleged crimes, grafitti, pot smoking, truancy are not in any way violent. The jewelry and a screwdriver. Again, how is that related to violence? No one has ever indicated anything about TM that suggests violence or violent crime. The same can't be said for GZ.

So if it fits YOUR narrative, you will use it against someone and say it really matters.

If not, then it is just harmless fluff. Got it.