Talk Elections

Sanford, Florida (CNN) -- Protesters upset about the shooting death of an unarmed Florida teen rallied outside a local courthouse Monday, demanding the arrest of a neighborhood watch captain who told police he shot the teen in self-defense.

...

According to the 911 calls released on Friday, terrified neighbors implored dispatchers to send police as a voice in the background screamed for help.
Martin was carrying a drink and candy when George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch captain, called 911 to report a suspicious man, authorities said.
The 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman not to confront him. But by the time police arrived, Martin lay dead with a gunshot wound in the chest, according to Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/19/justice/florida-teen-shooting/?hpt=hp_bn2

Florida has some draconian laws. Murder is legal so long as there is no evidence you weren't acting in "self defense", the cops can't touch you.

"Zimmerman told police he shot the teen in self-defense, authorities said, and remains free as the state attorney investigates. Police said he has not been charged because there are no grounds to disprove his story of what happened.
"The evidence and testimony we have so far does not establish that Mr. Zimmerman did not act in self-defense," the police chief said. "We don't have anything to dispute his claim of self-defense, at this point, with the evidence and testimony that we have.""

He definitely needs to be arrested. He only thought the person was suspicious.

Aye, I've been keeping up with this story on another message board for a week.  Ugly ugly situation.  The "neighborhood watch" guy is certainly an asshat and probably did it, but the prosecution is (probably correctly) balking at calling for his arrest due to lack of evidence against him.  You can't get a conviction (unless the shooter is black of course) in this country on "probably did it" levels of evidence.

The boy was unarmed and minding his own business, he was the one on the tape screaming for help, yet the neighborhood watch leader is claiming self-defense. Unbelievable.

So in Florida carrying 26 grams of weed is treated far more severely than gunning down an unarmed person you think is "suspicious". See now why I call it a joke state?

And remember, the only thing that looked "suspicious" about him was the fact that he was black.

Be careful here. The media coverage is favorable to a rush to judgement but there is a lot of uncertainty over what happened. Zimmerman claims he was the one who screamed for help. Three witnesses say the boy was the one who screamed for help. The police say one of the witnesses changed her story, which she angrily denies. One of the witnesses claims the police officer corrected her she reported that it was the boy who screamed for help.

Zimmerman claims he was attacked, and he has a wound in the back of his head. Of course, that only proves that there was a fight at some point.

All we can say for certain at this point is that 1.  Zimmerman should not gotten out of his vehicle and pursued Martin, and 2. IMO, since Zimmerman was 100 lbs. heavier and armed, it's hard to believe he could not have subdued Martin without deadly force, and 3. Florida's "Stand Your Ground" / "Shoot First" law (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/03/19/148937626/trayvon-martin-killing-puts-stand-your-ground-law-in-spotlight) makes it much more difficult for the police to arrest Zimmerman.

According to the so-called Duty to Retreat (http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crim/crim08.htm) under English common law:

"If a person can safely retreat and, therefore, avoid killing the aggressor, deadly force is unnecessary. Nonetheless, jurisdictions are sharply split on the issue of retreat.  A slim majority of jurisdictions permit a non-aggressor to use deadly force to repel an unlawful deadly attack, even if he is aware of a place to which he can retreat in complete safety. Many jurisdictions, however, provide that a non-aggressor who is threatened by deadly force must retreat rather than use deadly force, if he is aware that he can do so in complete safety."

In other words, if the police wanted to arrest Zimmerman, their best reasonable suspicion that he broke the law would have been that he violated the duty to retreat. However, Florida repealed its duty to retreat laws in 2005 and replaced it with the above-linked "Stand Your Ground" / "Shoot First" law. Since then, 17 states have rapidly followed suit, with little debate. Needless to say I think this is a mistake.

Considering that Zimmerman was the one who engaged him it doesn't matter, if the kid fought back it was self-defense on HIS part. The real tragedy here is that the kid WASN'T armed, then there'd be just one less racist piece of sh!t in the world instead of one less innocent teenager.

Though it's worth noting that his life is already utterly ruined regardless of if he gets arrested or not.

Zimmerman claims he was attacked from behind though. I'm not saying I believe it... but that is what the claim is and that is the only reason he's not under arrest. I don't think this would have ended better if there were 2 guns instead of one. You're assuming the kid was innocent (again, he may well have been, but we don't know) and you're assuming the kid would have killed Zimmerman first, and you're assuming Zimmerman deserved to die (even if he is a racist bigot).

No, I'm just saying the kid he harassed for no reason was less deserving.

How is the "attacker" defined here? We have an armed person who, it seems, got out of a car (or was he just walking by?) to attack another (unarmed) person - who, at that point, might have been (unsuccessfully) acting in self-defense. Is it being contested that Zimmerman was the first one to approach the kid, and not the other way around? Are there any witnesses?

Zimmerman definitely got out of his car and pursued Martin but there aren't any witnesses as to who initiated physical contact.

Of course Zimmerman is going to say he was attacked, it serves his defense. I find it difficult to believe that someone with a gun is going to be screaming for help from someone who is smaller than they are. And he did get out of his car when emergency advised him not to. At any rate, the FBI and DOJ are said to be looking into this, so thank god that Zimmerman isn't just being given a free pass.

The United States puts more people behind bars than any nation in the world. And yet this man remains free.

Unbelievable. We really are a nation in love with violence.

Apparently there was a witness that said he saw Martin beating Zimmerman, backing up Zimmerman's story. But it has only been reported on "myfoxorlando". If this is true then it's quite surprising that this has not been picked up more broadly. I am curious to see what the justification could be, because without this account the story is far more unfavorable for Zimmerman. The news outlets are whipping people into a frenzy, so if it turns out that this guy did see it and backs up Zimmerman's story, then it'll be a disaster.

Here is what we know about what happened for sure:

1. The watch captain, who is the party that is armed, calls the police about someone he thinks is suspicious and on foot.
2. The police tell him that they'll send someone to look into it, and to not follow the suspicious person.
3. The watch captain starts following him in his car anyways.
4. At some point the watch captain gets out of his car.
5. An altercation of some kind occurs at some point, and someone is screaming for help. The watch captain shoots his gun.

The result is an unarmed black teenager dead, and an armed white man who couldn't follow police instructions walking free - even if Zimmerman was the one who was attacked this definitely does not help racial tensions.

Once again, Zimmerman, by every account, came up, unprovoked in any way, to Martin and initiated the altercation. Zimmerman was armed, and, as his actions later would show, ready to use his gun. At that point, if I understand the Florida law right, Martin had every right to shoot Zimmerman dead in self-defense (mind it, it's not even obvious that Martin, unlike Zimmerman, had anywhere to flee - though, of course, that's irrelevant from the standpoint of Florida law). So, how would Martin striking Zimmerman with his bare hands (as there does not seem to be any evidence he was armed with anything more than an iced tea) change the calculus? Zimmerman attacked, Martin (perhaps) responded, Zimmerman got his gun and shot Martin. The self-defense argument seems to be unambiguously on the Martin side.

Or is the right interpretation of the Florida law that in every altercation whoever kills his/her opponient is, by definition, acting in self-defense? I would appreciate knowing that for sure: if that is, indeed, is the case (which seems to be the only explanation why Martin fighting Zimmerman would matter at all), I would do my best to avoid ever finding myself in Florida again, as a matter of personal safety.

Ideally, he'd be arrested and tried for murder, but I'm not sure they'll have the evidence they need to get a conviction.  Now, if they can at least get him on a charge for not listening to the 911 dispatcher, that'd at least be a small consolation.  Sadly, I'm not sure this will have a just ending.

They should try for manslaughter instead of murder - being that you can't say his actions were premeditated it would probably be easier to get a jury to convict on a lesser charge.

So a grand jury has now been convened over it. Oh and they found a call he made to his girlfriend right before being gunned down which proves that the killer clearly didn't act in self-defense. Guy better just hope for a racist jury.

Has there ever been a problem getting one in the South?

Is George Zimmerman actually white?

Not that it really should matter but no. He is definitely at least partially Hispanic. I guess you can make the argument that Hispanics can be of any race, which is true but not really how most people classify such matters.

Florida always lets the real criminals go free. Are you a terrorist who blew up an airplane killing 73 people? No problem if you are friends with the Bush family.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_Bosch

Florida has a felon as a Governor too, let's not forget.

[notalawyer]  It does look a lot like manslaughter, since he pretty clearly ignored police instructions but at least so far there's reasonable doubt as to his intent to kill the kid.  [/notalawyer]

He doesn't clearly say "f**king coons".  He is clearly a douche and like I said before, he probably murdered this kid for no good reason.  But we need proof of guilt for a conviction in this country, not just a dead kid and an asshat holding a smoking a gun.

How is someone holding a smoking gun over a dead kid not proof of guilt?

It's proof that he shot him, but he could claim it was in self defense.

even  the guy who wrote the "stand your ground" law says that the 911 call provides probable cause for an arrest. He said the law does not give you the right to pursue someone and then find yourself in a situation where you can then claim self-defense.

The scandal here is the local PD. They didn't even bother to check the kid's cellphone to notify his family logging him as a John Doe. And amazingly the kid's body was tested for drugs and alchohol but the shooter wasn't. They even let him keep his loaded gun. If this didn't become a news item, this whole thing would have just gone away and this guy would have got away with murder.

That may have been the intent of the law when he wrote it, but it's not written in the law.  The law says:


The law never says that if you pursue a suspicious person and then have to defend yourself that the justification doesn't apply.

It SHOULD say that, but it doesn't.  If the law isn't rewritten as a result of this, I'd be surprised.

I'm not saying the guy won't be found guilty - I'm just saying that there's a decent chance that he won't be found guilty.

Sanford Chief of Police has "temporarily" stepped down.

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.html

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin%20Lakes%20Shooting%20Initial%20Report.pdf

This claims the gun was collected as evidence, and the report identified the victim.

The tape released by the police ran 4:11 and that on Youtube 2:42

If I'm the seventh seed in the NBA East, I'm shooting LeBron James in the knee after his first foul.

This might be the dumbest law I've ever heard of, and I've heard of some dumb laws.  Pick a fight with someone, then shoot him and say "self defense?"

If this law is not decriminalizing most murders, I don't know what it does. Whenver anyone is killed without witnesses (and even in most cases w/ witnesses) it becomes simply impossible to prove that somebody acted illegally. It's "Shoot First, or You Will Be Shot Yourself Act". This is clear murder decriminalization - and most definite reason to do one's best to avoid ever going to Florida.

The thing is - everybody's going after the police chief for not making an arrest, and now he's temporarily stepped down, but that's (in my mind) because of pressure, not because he's actually failed to uphold the law.  Don't get me wrong, I think this guy should be given the death penalty for what he did, but the law is written in a way that really ties the hands of the police.  Removing the police chief will aleviate the public outcry, but when it comes down to 12 angry men deciding the shooter's fate, the law is sadly on the defense's side.

It may not have been the intent of the law, but the way I read it, it makes it really hard to convict him.

After reviewing the Florida law I really doubt it applies here.

The section of 776.012 that you quoted doesn't apply because, with the victim being quite obviously unarmed, any belief Zimmerman might have had that the use of deadly force was required to defend himself was utterly unreasonable.

Furthermore, note 776.013 (3):


The emphasis is mine. Blatantly ignoring the instructions of the 911 dispatcher is a clear case of obstruction of justice; Zimmerman was thus "engaging in an unlawful activity" at the time of the incident and as soon as that's proven in a court of law, Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law will not apply to him in the slightest. Therefore, he still had a duty to retreat and was unjustified in the use of deadly force.

(Sorry if this is post is a bit rambling, btw, i've been up almost 48 hours at this point).

BWWWWAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!

Nope.

After Zimmerman reported that Martin was running, the dispatcher asked if he were following him.  And then told him "we don't need you to do that", Zimmerman said "OK".

I don't know how the the dispatcher knew that he was moving, or whether he could tell if Zimmerman was still moving, or if Zimmerman was actually moving after he acknowledged the suggestion not to follow.

The phone call lasted another 1-1/2 minutes.

So if I call 911, and the dispatcher tells me to stay inside; and I nonetheless go outside, have I obstructed justice?

Since the fighting and shooting didn't happen on the street, Zimmerman wasn't in his truck.

If Zimmerman was trying to figure out where Martin had gone, and Martin jumped him, and either hit in him in the back of the head, or pushed him so he hit his head, would Zimmerman be justified in fighting back?

Please Elaborate.

From what I've heard from legal analysts, ignoring a 911 operator usually isn't considered obstruction of justice.

I'm honestly 50/50 as to whether I think he'll get convicted or not.

I love how everyone is treating this as an abstract case.

In case any Republicans are feeling cornered, like this is a partisan case and they have to defend Zimmerman, note that Allen West called the treatment of Zimmerman by the police "an outrage."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/rep-allen-west-on-trayvon-martin-this-is-an-outrage/2012/03/23/gIQA3glxVS_blog.html?tid=pm_politics_pop

Note, Allen West also observed:


Let's give the devil his due here fellas.  If this is considered a "defense" of Zimmerman I don't know what the hell would be considered a "prosecution".

Let's not take things out of context now.

There's a misunderstanding here. I was pointing out that Allen West was calling for justice here and *not* defending Zimmerman.

Oh right.

Well then, I interpreted out of context (your post that is).

Whoops.

BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Being an ugly racist chode who willfully ignores facts when it's inconvenient for you must be fun enough to warrant pathetic Dragonball Z villianesque laughter.  Amirite?

I read it the same way you did.

It's probably really tough to see me post about Allen West and think it's anything but an attack.

Actually, on second look it makes a lot more sense now.

What I got from it (second time around) was "Republicans you don't have to defend that guy.  Look at Allen West for crying out loud."

It was Sam's comment about how their must be money at stake for Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to get involved. Sometimes, like when Jackson was crying at Obama's inauguration, the simplest explanation for someone's behavior is the best one. The Trayvon Martin case is horrifying, but for many African Americans it's just a particularly media-friendly incident of a reality that rarely gets attention.

I happen to know Al Sharpton, and I wouldn't be saying that if it weren't true.  Perhaps it was not fair to put Jesse Jackson in the same sentence, as I don't know him personally.  :P

As for me, I will defend 'innocent until proven guilty' in all cases.  Those who are convicting him right now without knowledge of all facts are completely wrong, regardless of whether they are black, white, Republican, Democratic, race-hustlers, baiters, master debaters or otherwise.

...unless there's a cover story in the National Enquirer, which constitutes proof of guilt. :p

Anyway, none of our judgment has the force of law - only the courts can convict him of being guilty. We can only make our own judgments from the evidence we have before us and provide our opinions, which carry no weight at all in the real world.

I was under the impression the cops had questioned Zimmerman more, and then decided they didn't have enough to make an arrest.  But I guess I was wrong in that, so with that being said, I do think the police chief should be removed.

How could Zimmerman be "standing his ground" in "self-defense" when he went off in pursuit of an unarmed teenager -- a decision which went against both what the 911 dispatcher told him and general neighborhood watch protocol?  In fact, neighborhood watch is not supposed to carry firearms.  This isn't even a case where Zimmerman saw Martin on his property.  He just decided he looked "suspicious" and now the result is a dead unarmed teenager.

The local police failed to perform a real investigation in this case.  They did a drug and alcohol test on the victim but not the shooter.  They let Zimmerman go home with the gun used in the shooting.  This is beyond pathetic.

He told the police that he had shot Martin, and while they were cuffing him, they noticed his back was wet, and his head was bleeding.  After Sanford fire department attended to his injuries, he was taken to the police station, and questioned.  The police investigation determined that there was not probable cause, and released him.

He was not on a neighborhood watch, he was in his car when he saw Martin and called the police.  He had a CHL, and if you are going to carry, it makes sense to always carry.

He did not pursue Martin.  After Martin started running, he apparently was driving along a street, and the dispatcher asked if he were following Martin.  He said yes, the dispatcher said that "we don't need you to do that", to which Zimmerman responded "OK".

The phone call lasted another 1-1/2 minutes.  So either Zimmerman had stopped; the dispatcher thought he had stopped; or the dispatcher thought it wasn't that important.

He later got out of his car.

They did an autopsy on the victim, as they do in all cases.   After they took Zimmerman to the police station for questioning, he was released (one of the complaints was that a narcotics and alcohol investigator questioned Zimmerman, but the major crimes investigator was at the location of the shooting.

The police kept the gun as evidence.

I just looked up where Sanford is and I'm quite surprised. Why does an outer exurb of Orlando have such a high black population?

It matters who touched whom first, not who "engaged" whom first.  The Stand your ground law might have allowed Martin a defense for beating Zimmerman, but, that is a moot point now.

It was a city of regional importance before the Mouse arrived and Orlando boomed. It incorporates several historic Black settlements.

Is this any more reasonable than assuming that a physically larger man initiated a beatdown in which he prevailed, but, somehow had a broken nose, then, while sucessfully beating him down decided to shoot him for the Hell of it. Then, after shooting him, he calls out to witnesses to call the police.

No, by all accounts Zimmerman left his car and approached Martin. Zimmerman may very well have initiated a conversation. Whom initiated the "altercation" is a key fact in dispute in this case.

His broken nose suggests otherwise.

His broken nose suggests otherwise.
[/quote]

Shooting someone fatally in the chest is a reasonable response to a broken nose? What the Hell planet are these people living on?

Florida.

Shooting someone fatally in the chest is a reasonable response to a broken nose? What the Hell planet are these people living on?
[/quote]

Are you suggesting someone shoot in the chest broke his nose?

Parse error, the question you are asking makes no sense.

What if he is pounding your head into the cement?

If you are going to shoot someone in self defense, better the chest at close range, rather than the back at 50 feet, don't you think.

Shooting someone fatally in the chest is a reasonable response to a broken nose? What the Hell planet are these people living on?
[/quote]

If someone is beating you sufficiently hard to break your nose, that would constitute a basis for a reasonable fear of great bodily harm, which is a criteria for self-defense.

I really have no idea how any one can make a strong case for either side. Who knows? We weren't there. It's pretty much all one word v. another.

That being said, shooting someone is completely overboard for this situation.

Have you ever had your nose broken? It doesn't take a whole hell of a lot of force unless you have ridiculously tough cartilage.

Or are you saying I would have been justified in shooting dead (as opposed to shooting to incapacitate) that one bully who threw me a haymaker in the seventh grade?

Generally, we don't issue concealed carry permits to seventh graders, or, allow them to carry weapons, so your question makes no sense.

Oh for God's sake you bloodless dishonest pedant, mentally age me up five years if it's that damn important to you.

It is the height of intellectual dishonest to ask a question that presupposes that children have guns. We don't allow children to carry guns in part because we don't trust their judgment, especially in situations like you describe.

Mentally aging you to eighteen, which presumably would be five or six years after the incident you decribed, I would note that the person's reputation as a "bully" would carry great weight in determining whether, or not, you had a reasonable fear of great bodily harm.

Whereas we, of course, trust the judgment of wannabe cops with restraining orders against them from previous violent incidents who habitually make phone calls to the police about trivial sh**t.

Clearly you don't understand anything even remotely counterfactual nor do you feel the need to argue from any kind of general principles rather than absurdly myopic understandings of tidy precise little situations tailored to fit your preexisting dogma, so I'm honestly a little surprised that there are any points in this that you chose not to finesse into oblivion, but since that is the case I'm not independently surprised that this was one of those.


Because Martin's 'reputation' was at the top of Zimmerman's list of concerns, obviously. Martin's 'reputation' as far as Zimmerman knew was that of somebody who was being stalked through his apartment complex by a strange man.

First off, whether Zimmerman was on official watch duty at the moment or not is not an excuse to break accepted neighborhood watch protocol.  He pursued a suspect with his gun, neither of which he should have done.  As a member of the neighborhood watch he should have been well aware of the proper procedure.  He is not a law enforcement officer.  

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/fl-neighborhood-watch-groups-warned-20120322,0,6874439.story (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/fl-neighborhood-watch-groups-warned-20120322,0,6874439.story)

Your statement that he did not pursue Martin is false.  Per the 911 tapes, he admitted he was in pursuit of Martin (the dispatcher asked if he was following Martin and he said "yeah").  When the 911 dispatcher told him to stop he said "okay" but I am skeptical that he actually stopped -- the continued sound of his heavy breathing suggests that wasn't the case.  And if he was not pursuing Martin, why did he get out of his car?  Furthermore, Zimmerman's account of events is contradicted by Martin's girlfriend, who was on the phone with him at the time the shooting occurred:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-death-friend-phone-teen-death-recounts/story?id=15959017#.T3FxWdWyGQ0 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-death-friend-phone-teen-death-recounts/story?id=15959017#.T3FxWdWyGQ0)

As for your apparent assertion that the Sanford Police conducted a fair investigation, I will respond to that later when I have time.  Needless to say I could not disagree more.

There's... really, really, really no point in arguing with BS Bob.

Whether, or not, George Zimmerman should have been denied a concealed carry permit is one question. Whether, or not, he used his gun in self-defense is another question. If you can't argue why he didn't use self-defense, then you have no case.


Appealing to subjective standards of "self-defense"  that revolve around whether, or not, a person had a "reasonable" belief that he faced "great bodily harm" is hardly amenable to assertions of "general principles." The specific facts and circumstances matter a great deal in such cases.

 



You asked an intellectually dishonest hypothetical. I pointed out that it was intellectually dishonest. You amended your hypothetical to one that was more intellectually honest, and, I answered your hypothetical. In response to my answer, you mapped my response to the Zimmerman case even though it clearly did not apply.

I would, also, note the stunning level of hypocrisy you have shown regarding the reasonable use of force. Somehow, using a gun to stop a beating is in your opinion excessive and unreasonable, yet, you don't fault Martin for swinging first, or, after having decked Zimmerman, continuing to beat the man as he lay on the ground.

Not it the guy with the gun was on the ground being beaten at the time.

We do not know the circumstances, and I think we need to reserve judgment until we do.

And I love who nobody is looking at all the evidence.

How come you have access to all the evidence in Philly?

Yes, it is quite fascinating how much expertise people have been able to accumulate on this case when it hasn't even become one yet. The age of infinite knowledge...

I never said I had.  The point is that we don't have all the evidence and we are not even looking at the evidence we do have.

We do know a few things.

A.  Zimmerman thought Martin looked suspicious.  He followed him in his car, called 911, and was told to stop following Martin.

So, the first question is, did Zimmerman stop following Martin?

B.  Zimmerman left his car. 

Did he leave his car in order to follow Martin?  Did he leave his car to check something else out?

C.  Zimmerman had some injuries to the back of his head and his face.

How did Zimmerman get these injuries?  Were they self inflicted?  Was he attacked?  Did he continue following Martin and Martin inflict these injuries?

D.  Zimmerman shot Martin. 

Did he shoot Martin without provocation?  Was Martin shot while Martin was inflicting these injuries?

The answers to these questions will make a difference on if Zimmerman is guilty of murder, manslaughter, or acted in self defense.

If someone is beating you sufficiently hard to break your nose, that would constitute a basis for a reasonable fear of great bodily harm, which is a criteria for self-defense.
[/quote]

Of course it is. Shooting to incapacitate is one of the funniest lines told by people who don't have a clue.

This is, in turn, one of the most sickening lines told by bloodthirsty wannabe-badasses, so at least I'm amusing.

Shoot a lot of people, do you krazen?

I can't answer for krazen, but I've known enough people that were shot, and done enough target shooting myself to know that he is correct.

How about you, Sib?

Do you think the world is full of Jack Bauers who can hit a bullseye with their off hand while sprinting in the opposite direction?

Where do you think instructors teach people and police to shoot? The torso is the biggest target.

It has nothing to do with badassery and everything to do with self-defense.

Most people are not accurate shots.

Oh, I know absolutely nothing about firearms and have no particular intention of learning more. It's just that the use of language (I think that word will do) here... is... aha... interesting.

Martin was 6' 3"...and 140 lbs.  That's incredibly scrawny for that height (I weigh 135 and I'm a full 8 inches shorter than Martin, and I'm pretty scrawny).  Zimmerman, despite being shorter, weighs close to 100 lbs more than Martin.  And you expect me to believe that Martin could beat Zimmerman up and knock him to the ground easily?  With that kind of weight disparity and what it implies about Martin's physique?

You know, blackness. That whole area there. Blackness.

That would actually be a good point if this weren't point-blank, which in my experience (albeit with foxes and turkeys) tells me tends to go somewhat differently.

Has Zimmerman denied shooting explicitly to kill or are we in the business denying it for him? If this is something that's been talked about in circles more familiar with the case I'm willing to grant you this element of the point.

I still won't grant you the element that it's at all reasonable to shoot somebody because they broke your nose.

Also, relating to what Mikado said: I am the same height as Martin, and weigh anywhere from thirty-five to fifty pounds more than he did depending upon the season. I am thin, such that elderly Japanese women have in the past tried to force-feed me miso.

Uh huh. You've been able to shoot moving foxes and turkeys in the legs while avoiding their body, consistently, while said fox or turkey was mashing on your face?

Said scenario makes it far more likely that the perp would get shot in the torso. It would be far more difficult and dangerous for someone to attempt to shoot the perp anywhere else as you endanger yourself to richochets.

Why do you think policemen are taught to shoot the torso?

Shoot to wound is of course a sad illogical statement. The assumption of course is when one shoots that death is a possible, if not likely, outcome!

I personally haven't, no. I grew up in a rural backwater with a harsh climate but I was still a child. I did in fact know other people, including, remarkably, some adults.

What you are describing is, of course, why one does not generally shoot unarmed people.

Perhaps people should use their xray vision to ensure that someone is unarmed. Or, wait until they point a firearm at your torso first....

The perpetrator has the element of surprise. SYG laws are designed to level the playing field.

Duty-to-retreat tradition is designed to do the same thing.

It's also hard to describe somebody who was being stalked as a 'perpetrator'.

Well, whether the law is correctly applied to this situation will surely be determined by investigation.

But the concept of SYG dates back hundreds of years...hence of course the term castle doctrine.

Duty to retreat of course puts the attacker at an advantage as he/she has the option of escalating force.

Right. It's SYG in a public place that was new about this law, and part of what will be adjudicated, I imagine, as well as whether or not Zimmerman was, in fact, acting in self-defense as he claims.

Duty to retreat's other purpose is, of course, to protect the public from rumbles and gunfights. It can be argued whether or not it does so.

Do I think a young 140 lbs. man could jump a man 100 lbs. heavier from behind, at night?  Sure.

Apparently there have been conflicting reports of what Zimmerman's account is. I'm not sure if this is because Zimmerman himself was inconsistent or if the facts that were leaked to the media simply have been misleading. But the latest I have read is not that Zimmermain claims he was jumped from behind... he claims that Martin walked up to him from behind and asked him if he had a problem with him, or something to that effect. Martin's girlfriend's story would fit into this more latter account. If they exchanged words, then no one was jumped from behind.

Jumped was my characterization, but an attack that Zimmerman would be expecting, from behind, could be the case as well.  I am somewhat troubled by the wound on the back of Zimmerman's head.

Wouldn't it fit with the broken nose if Martin punched him in the face, knocking him over so his head hit the pavement?  Followed by Zimmerman firing?  Which would still be voluntary manslaughter because he's using lethal force in "self-defense" in a situation where his life isn't actually in danger.

EDIT: especially because Zimmerman was previously following Martin around, as both the 911 call and the story Martin's girlfriend says show.  Zimmerman's actions provoked a confrontation that led to Zimmerman getting knocked over and shooting Martin, is my current impression. 

Suppose Zimmerman broke it when he hit the ground, hypothetically?  There are a lot of possibilities.



Well, no, because he had a belief that his life was endangered, under your scenario.  Zimmerman's action might be provocative, but they didn't justify Martin turning, approaching and punching him.

Zimmerman's story didn't add up and one investigator wanted to charge him the night of the shooting.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-investigator-wanted-charge-george-zimmerman-manslaughter/story?id=16011674#.T3JEgPkU6So

The greatest criminal here is the FL legislature for passing such an idiotic law and opening the floodgates of bogus "self-defense" claims. Self-defense was permissable before, but this law is the definition of "unintended consequences".

It's not just Florida. Although Florida was the first to enact it and it's been in effect for the longest there, between 17 and 24 states already have this enacted (depending on which report you listen to). If your state doesn't already have it, there's almost certainly someone trying to push it through. In Ohio (http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2012/03/27/columbus-effort-underway-to-enact-stand-your-ground-law.html), an effort is underway to enact this law and lobbyists were campaigning for it today. It's worth nothing that in Florida it was enacted over the objections of law enforcement and prosecutors, who feared exactly what is now happening.

46 phone calls over 8 years is not all that many.

You claimed that Zimmerman should not have been carrying a gun since he was on neighborhood watch.  But he wasn't on neighborhood watch.  He was going to the store.  I seriously doubt that people involved in neighborhood watch are told not to report strange or suspicious activity that they observe when going to work or driving.

He did not pursue Martin.  It is your fantasy that the 250 pound 28 YO 5'9 guy outran the 6'0 160 pound 17 YO until he got close enough to shoot him at close range.

He saw someone who appeared to be walking about, just looking at houses, who fit the description of those who had committed burglaries in the area.  he called the police.  He gave them a description.  He said that Martin had started to run.

He was in his truck and he started to follow.  If the engine was running, he might just have put the truck into gear and been creeping along at 5 MPH.  The dispatcher somehow figured this out.  Maybe he can figure it out from the phone cells, maybe he could hear the engine running.  Maybe he was just intuitive.

The dispatch asked Zimmerman if he were following Martin.  Zimmerman immediately said "yeah", and when the dispatcher reminded that "we don't need you to do that".  Zimmerman immediately said "OK".

He did not pursue after being told not to.  To the contrary, he immediately acknowledged the recommendation.   The phone call continued for another 1-1/2, and there is no evidence that Martin remained in sight.

Either:

(1) Zimmerman stopped;

(2) Zimmerman continued to follow Martin and effectively fooled the dispatcher;

(3) Zimmerman continued to follow, the dispatcher knew it, but decided it was hopeless to try to get Zimmerman to stop;

(4) Zimmerman continued to follow, the dispatcher knew it, and wanted Zimmerman to do it.  The "order" to stop, was just to establish plausible deniability.

I vote for (1).  What about yourself.

Kennard said the National Sheriff's Association does not have a record of the group registering as a Neighhborhood Watch Program (proper noun).  Kennard was acting as bureaucrat protecting his organization's trademarks.

The Sanford Police Department brochure:

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/police/flyers/Neighborhood_Watch_english.pdf

doesn't say anything about registering with the Neighborhood Watch Program.  Sanford police did meet with the neighborhood watch group in Zimmerman's neighborhood.

"Pursue" is not the same as "follow".

The tape confirms that Zimmerman at least acknowledged that he was no longer following Martin; rather than the popular belief that he pursued Martin after being directed not to.  Agreed?

How did she know Martin was "cornered"?  You realize that this pursuit if carried out over at least 4 minutes was slow as molasses.  Did his girl friend call police after hearing her friend had been chased by a strange person, and then the call was disconnected after she heard shoving.  There is no contemporaneous account of her interpretation of events.

Remember that the two witnesses who were actually outside reported that Martin was on top of Zimmerman.

He's actually correct.  It's a Hollywood myth, like cars exploding when shot or falling off a cliff.

Apparently his mother has filed to have his name trademarked this morning. I'm beginning to get tired of this case now, especially if the family is out to make money off of it.

This ignores the minor detail that Zimmerman's own attorney stated his defense has nothing to do with the "stand your ground" law. He noted Zimmerman acted in "self-defense."


Folks that don't like that law are abusing the facts in this circumstance to rally against it.

Well, clearly it's why you don't shoot.

So apparently a new video is out showing Zimmerman being led in handcuffs out of the police cruiser into the station where he has no bruises or blood anywhere on him that can be seen. No bandages, his shirt is clean and dry, no sign of grass. Yes, the police report says the fire department treated him at the scene, but for a guy who's defenders have been portraying him getting decked onto the ground, and "hammered" for at least a minute possibly much longer while crying for help, he sure doesn't look the least bit scratched.

I'm confused. When people here were talking about his bloody face and broken news and hypothesizing that Martin knocked him to the ground and beat the crap out of him, what were they basing it on, if Zimmerman wasn't even bloody in the first place?

So what we are dealing here is legalization of manslaughter. I am hoping NRA will try to protect Zimmerman.

Watch in the middle of the video when the one cop is putting his jacket in the trunk of the car.  The other cop comes around and is checking the back of his head.

"Pursue" is not the same as "follow?"  Whatever.  Well then he was "following" Martin.  And would any of this have happened if he had NOT "followed" Martin? (with a gun)

It is your conjecture that he followed the instructions of the dispatcher to stop looking for Martin.  Many would disagree with you.  Are you really assuming he did just because he "okay."  Hard to believe given that he got out of his car with his gun and the person he was following is now dead.

Zimmerman's father is now saying that Trayvon Martin threatened to kill his son:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/29/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/29/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html)

Maybe it is just me, but I would wager this story is not true.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/29/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/29/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html)

Elderly couple abandon their home after address is posted on Twitter as that of George Zimmerman (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-28/news/os-trayvon-martin-wrong-zimmerman-20120327_1_spike-lee-william-zimmerman-retweeted)Posting the REAL address would be wrong, posting the WRONG address is much much worse.  Spike Lee should be better than this.

Here's the video itself, for the lazy who don't want to search for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=N5OiLQjUcOU#!

Some more bombshells from Zimmerman's father that buttresses jimrtex's and J.J.'s case against Trayvon. Note the text in bold below - it vindicates Zimmerman.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/29/2720704/george-zimmermans-dad-trayvon.html#storylink=cpy

Parents will say anything for their children sometimes and this is the first time that this particular statement has come up, it hasn't even been mentioned by the police as part of Zimmerman's official statement. I don't believe one word of anything this father says and it's not really admissible, since he was not there and only has secondhand information.

I don't consider anything the father says to be anything more than entertainment value, because the father wasn't there. That claim's only significant if it is relaying a claim made by Zimmerman himself. But even then, there's no evidence whatsoever to support it.

His father wasn't there and was not a witness in any way. He's also got an obvious bias. Why should anyone care what he has to say on the matter?

I think the police report noted the injury on the back of the head and the bloody nose.  I would not call that conclusive.

Well, that's one perspective. Other people prefer to consider all the evidence, which muddies the waters and shows that we can't rush to judgment.

Pursue:  Follow (someone or something) to catch or attack them.

Follow:  Go after (someone) in order to observe or monitor.

Zimmerman observed something suspicious and called the police.  He gave a description of Martin, what he appeared to be doing.  After he observed Martin running, he began to follow him so that he could continue to observe him.  After the dispatcher told him that it was not necessary to follow him, he acknowledged the request.

Or do you think the dispatcher actually meant "we don't need you to catch or attack the subject"?

Zimmerman said that "he ran" which indicates that Martin was no longer in sight.  And he told the dispatcher to tell the officer where his truck was.

I don't know why Zimmerman left his truck.  Maybe he got out of his truck to wait for the police officer, and then decided to go look behind the townhouses.

The dispatcher did not tell him to stop looking for Martin.   "Are you looking for the subject?"  "Yeah"  "OK, we don't need you to do that" "OK".

You were told by someone that Zimmerman pursued Martin, even after being ordered not to do so.  Since this conformed to your prejudices, you adopted it as your belief.  After I pointed out that the tape does not support such a conclusion, you think I am making the conjecture.

Zimmerman shot Martin.  Martin is dead.  That does not mean that Zimmerman was following him.

I'll just post this link right here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/george-zimmermans-crumbling-story-part-3-the-detective/2012/03/29/gIQA3NvAjS_blog.html).

Marcia Clark is a paid performer, and trained as a lawyer.  She would try to present things in a way that conform to people's prejudices, so that they would jump to conclusions.

The police report says that the policeman didn't notice the wound on the back of the head until he was putting the cuffs on.  It sounds like he was sitting in the back of the squad car when the Sanford Fire Department was treating him.

And you can't deny the policeman was looking at the back of Zimmerman's head.  What did Marcia Clark say that he was doing.

Have you seen the reverse angle video from the garage?  See if there is something that you missed in the first video completely.

When Nancy Grace interviewed the mortician, he said that when he was doing the preparation, that he didn't really know anything about the circumstances of Martin's death.  He was in Fort Lauderdale.   Remember that the reason for Martin being at the morgue so long was because the funeral home did not pick up the body for 24 hours after the autopsy had been completed.

When asked about where on his chest Martin had been shot, the mortician was unable to say, because that is where the autopsy had been done (I assume meaning that was where he had been cut open).

The mortician did not say that the body didn't show any signs of violence such as bruised hands.  He said that he did not notice any injuries to the hand.

Go to the City of Sanford web site and you can see the complete video of all their surveillance cameras and not the edited media versions.

MSNBC cut a minute out of the 911 call, which started with the sister (who also sounded very young) of the 13-YO calling 911, and then after determining that she didn't appear to a direct witness, asked to talk to her brother.  He said he had seen two men fighting and then his dog got loose, and so he didn't see the shooting.

It then went to an interview with the mother.  They didn't ask whether the police had interviewed the daughter; nor whether they had asked the Mother what she had observed.

Here's that video. You get more angles, no annoying logos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WWDNbQUgm4&feature=youtu.be

No, it's brute fact. His father wasn't a witness. What part of that do you not understand? His father's statements aren't evidence. He would not be allowed to take the stand and present these in a court of law because at best his statements are hearsay.

Zimmerman's father is innocent until proven guilty - do not rush to judgment. We have to consider all the evidence.

jimrtex, J.J., BigSkyBob, help me out here. He doesn't get it.

Zimmerman's father doesn't have any evidence, he's only going off his son's statement and that is secondhand information to him. He was not a witness, as he was nowhere near the scene to corroborate anything his son says.

On edit, reading again, I'm starting to detect some sarcasm here.

Well played, sir.

Zimmerman's father is retelling Zimmerman's account of what happened. In an American trial, that is "hearsay." In a trial by public opinion, it has whatever weight anyone listening places on it.

There is one very interesting point the father noted: Zimmerman pulled the trigger not because he was being beaten, per se, but, rather, because Martin stated he intended to kill him.

I'm kind of hoping this helps deal a massive blow to the mostly joke organizations that are "neighborhood watches" and people realize that they are a stupid joke and quit volunteering or dealing with them.

http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2012/03/neighborhood-watch-trailer-pulled-in-light-of-trayvon-martin-case

I wonder if they'll end up shelving this if the situation gets even more intense. I doubt it but it wouldn't exactly be a big loss even if they did, the movie looks pretty terrible.

Maybe they'll suddenly start pushing the alien angle really hard in the marketing. (The pulled trailer trailer didn't push the alien thing at all.)

lol

Zimmerman has a history of violent behavior.  Assaulting a police officer and a domestic violence charge among other things.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/trayvon-martin-case-george-zimmerman_n_1392591.html?ref=mostpopular (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/trayvon-martin-case-george-zimmerman_n_1392591.html?ref=mostpopular)

The "police officer" was an ABC agent, and the claim is that Zimmerman, then  21, came up and started talking to his friend, and after a while shoved the officer.

If the officer was making an arrest, he was doing a crap job of controlling the situation.  If he was in uniform, and Zimmerman shoved him, it is pretty amazing that the charges were dropped.

The judge ordered he and his ex-girlfriend to stay away from each other.  They were apparently a couple from 18 to 21.

ABC agents are police officers.

Can of worms, but would he have been killed if he was white.

This Zimmerman guy needs to spend a long time in jail.

Police officers may enforce liquor laws, and ABC agents may have law enforcement powers.

They probably aren't in uniform.

ABC agents are police officers. Google it.

Law enforcement officers.  Not police officers.

If you were trying to see if a bar was serving persons who were intoxicated or serving underage drinking, you aren't going to be wearing a uniform.

Two forensic voice identification experts say the cries for help on the 911 tape are NOT George Zimmerman's.

They are not able to definitely say the voice was Trayvon Martin's because they do not have a good sample of his voice.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-31/news/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-911-20120331_1_voice-identification-expert-reasonable-scientific-certainty (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-31/news/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-911-20120331_1_voice-identification-expert-reasonable-scientific-certainty)

Well it's tough to identify anyone else who it could be so...

Just as an FYI, "voice identification" is about the most pseudoscientific discipline imaginable - it's not even admissible in court (which is saying something, because all sorts of pseudoscientific "forensic" methods are).

Actually, isn't the correct formulation to say that they couldn't make any determination whatsoever as to whether, or not, it was Martin's voice because they simply didn't have a sample?

As to analyzing their "science" two points come quickly to mind. First, they don't say what the expected pattern match is if samples from two different people are compared. If it is 10%, that strongly points to Zimmerman being the speaker. Second, the assumption that someone reporting a suspicious person from the safety of their car, knowing they are armed, constitutes the intense "stress" someone being beaten would exhibit in their voice is a highly dubious assumption, at best.

We know that Zimmerman's neighbor, whom has spoken to Zimmerman on numerous occasions, identified his voice from the 911 tapes.

It was hard to believe it was Zimmerman, it sounded like someone younger and the older a man is, the less likely he is to reach certain octaves and decibels. Of course they can't claim it's Martin's voice without a sample, but that doesn't change the fact that their analysis did not match Zimmerman's voice. There are big holes in this case and it really needs to be investigated properly.

I definitely agree.  There are a whole bunch of questions.

Defenders of Zimmerman are looking more and more foolish every day...

The call has 45 seconds before the gunshot.   So there must have been some (10 seconds) before that for the caller to react, and decide to call 911.

What would cause someone to scream for help?

Being chased by a guy with a gun?

And, your theory is that a young man running away from a heavier older man screaming "Help" at the top of his lungs decided to stop and turn around so he could be shot in the chest? Persons whom opt for "flight" rather than "fight" tend to keep running.

Ok then, being shoved to the ground by a guy with a gun who had been creepily following you around - happy now?

If you were being chased by a guy with a gun, would you run?

In 45 seconds, assuming a 6'3 17 YO can run a 15 second 100 yard dash, he could have reached the place where he was staying AND returned.

I really don't think the 5'9 guy was chasing after 6'3 guy for 45 seconds until he finally caught up with and fired at short range.

Why would Zimmerman shove him to the ground?

Why would he get out of his car to look for him when the police told him not to pursue?

He did not get out of his truck when the police told him not to pursue.

He got out of his truck when Martin began running.  If Martin ran down the street, it is more likely that Zimmerman would have simply driven around the corner.  So it is more likely that Martin ran along the path behind the townhouses, or perhaps even over on the next street.  Zimmerman reacted and got out of his truck.  It was then that the dispatcher told him not to follow.  Zimmerman acknowledged, and said that "He ran", which implies that he was no longer in sight.

And, if Zimmerman had ran after him, you would have heard his heavy breathing on the call.

Pursuit does not necessarily have to involved running. He could have just continued looking around the area. Either that or he stuck around the area to wait for the police without heading back to his vehicle... at night, in the rain. Which considering he believed that there was a suspicious and potentially dangerous person around would be just about as stupid as pursuing. And if Martin ran and Zimmerman did not continue to pursue, what opportunity would Martin have to initiate the altercation? Are you saying that after running that he turned around and decided to pick a fight then? Seems like contradictory behavior to me.

There are about 4-1/2 minutes from the time Zimmerman reported that Martin had run toward the back entrance until the fighting apparently began.

At a fast walk (15 minutes/mile) he could have got home (to where he was staying), returned, gone home, and come back a second time.

Zimmerman had told the dispatcher to have the police officer call him when he got to the complex.   Why would he go back to his truck?  It makes more sense to find the street address so he could tell the cop.

1. Because as neighborhood watch captain you would think he'd know the streets of his own neighborhood.
2. Because he thinks there's a suspicious, potentially dangerous person around. Why not go to the safety of his vehicle to get some shelter from the rain?

But not necessarily the address, especially if he wasn't in his truck and the truck was not in front of a residence.  It is almost continuous driveway in front of any building, so you would be blocking a driveway.  He started to tell the dispatcher that the officer would see his truck.  The dispatcher asked the address, and then started questioning whether he lived in the area, as if to possibly suggest that the police officer meet him at his house.

The dispatcher then asked him if he wanted to meet at the mailboxes, which is not where he was, nor where his truck was.  He realized that, and then decided to have the police officer come to him.   The dispatcher is probably trained to get something that can be keyed into their mapping system so it will show up on the police officer's screen.

How hard was the rain?  You had people walking their dogs, so it may have let up a bit.

I can't believe that some ****wits on here can justify Zimmerman's decision to murder!

He used a gun ffs! I could maybe understand it if he used some other weapon which killed him, but a gun is too far! Surely he knew that a gun can easily kill! It wasn't like the kid was that dangerous anyway. The people that say they are either don't know how kids communicate today, or are on the same level as a HP as Mr Zimmerman.

I don't know how American law works, but in Australia, while self-defence can obviously play a factor, it's not a full defence to murder, and you have to use reasonable force. So I reckon he could be busted with murder. And he deserves it, too.

The whole story is so uninteresting to me I can't read any of it.......I think it was memphis who noted that there's no hubub elsewhere when black kids get killed daily in the U.S.

I'm sorry for the family.....and every other family who doesn't merit national attention.

What do you mean "how kids communicate today"?

Had the shooter been arrested in a timely fashion, this story would not have mushroomed to the degree that it has.  There are too many holes in Zimmerman's story and the actions of the Sanford Police look incompetent at best or a coverup at worst.  It was really the reaction of the police which pushed this story into national headlines rather than the incident itself.

I've just heard Zimmerman's story, by proxy.  If true, it is self defense.  Now, is it true or is it an attempt to cover up murder?  The forensic evidence should tell, especially the bullet entry.

1) If someone is running away from you, the only effective pursuit strategy is to run after them [or get back in your car and drive towards where they ran.] The alternative to assume that they had ran away, which is what Zimmerman's father said that Zimmerman did.

Zimmerman's father noted that the police asked Zimmerman for an address, and, in response, Zimmerman was walking on the sidewalks towards the front of the townhouses so that he could read an address.

2) Since we know for a fact that Zimmerman was not running in pursuit, we know for a fact that Martin could have ran all the way back to to his father's house without meeting Zimmerman. For some reason, Martin took a path that led him back towards where Zimmerman was when he exited his car.

3) Whether Martin doubled back purposely to confront Zimmerman, or their paths happened to cross, Martin's girlfriend heard the initial exchange as Martin asking if Zimmerman had a problem; Zimmerman asking Martin what he was doing; and a scuffle breaking out immediately disconnecting Martin's headset. [Zimmerman's account is Martin asked him if he had a "f------ problem?"]

It is odd that a man would ask someone a question and not allow time for a reply.

1) In the 911 call Zimmerman described the buildings as near the entrance to the complex. Had he really knew their street numbers why wouldn't he have told the dispatcher immediately from memory?

2) Because he thought Martin ran away, apparently.

Zimmerman was brought to the station for questions immediately after the paramedics looked after his head wound. When you are detained and brought to the police station for questioning that's de facto being arrested. Zimmerman wasn't charged because the all the evidence and witness statements the police had at that time indicated that he had acted in self-defense.