Trayvon Martin...is anyone following??

[amsunshine]

Does anyone know where the entry wound for the bullet was on Martin's body?

[Slartibartfast]

Does anyone know where the entry wound for the bullet was on Martin's body?

 

That is the question

 

It may be some time before the medical examiner report is released

[amsunshine]

That is the question

 

It may be some time before the medical examiner report is released

 

Ah. This will be very telling.

[Slartibartfast]

Ah. This will be very telling.

 

There was a case locally where Stand Your Ground came into play, except the person was shot in the back. They were convicted of murder.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

That is the question

 

It may be some time before the medical examiner report is released

 

He was shot in the chest.

 

A body can end up face down after being shot for many reasons, including the person being shot stumbling and falling afterwards.

 

It is also quite possible to shoot someone and not get any of their blood on you, depending upon the angle of the wound and how quickly the move after being shot.

 

Finally, we know that a police report stated that Zimmerman's clothing was "wet", that does not mean there was not any blood at all on the clothing.

 

I am quite amused at how you also ignore the eyewitness who say Martin on top of Zimmerman and reported it was Zimmerman crying for help. This is in contrast to the "witnesses" trotted out by the Martin family attorney who did not actually see any of the event prior to the shooting, but claimed they "knew" it was Martin calling for help.

[Mrs Mungo]

An eyewitness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman. The police also stated the physical evidence was consistent with Zimmerman's account.

 

The stories of various witnesses are conflicting, and we don't know what the physical evidence says yet.

 

I think some aren't considering the excessive use of force used after T was followed and questioned that precipitated a shot being fired by Z, who at the time was being physically victimized to his possible death.

 

At what point to you believe T would have stopped smashing his head into the pavement?

 

I don't know that Zimmerman's story is true. *AND* Florida law instructs concealed carry permit holders that they are not de facto police officers. The law instructs people to avoid conflict when possible instead of getting into a conflict where one is armed. He never should have been in the situation.

 

He was shot in the chest.

 

A body can end up face down after being shot for many reasons, including the person being shot stumbling and falling afterwards.

 

It is also quite possible to shoot someone and not get any of their blood on you, depending upon the angle of the wound and how quickly the move after being shot.

 

Finally, we know that a police report stated that Zimmerman's clothing was "wet", that does not mean there was not any blood at all on the clothing.

 

I am quite amused at how you also ignore the eyewitness who say Martin on top of Zimmerman and reported it was Zimmerman crying for help. This is in contrast to the "witnesses" trotted out by the Martin family attorney who did not actually see any of the event prior to the shooting, but claimed they "knew" it was Martin calling for help.

 

Neither witness saw how it started, as far as I have seen. I am merely suggesting we wait and see what the remaining evidence will show. You are the one who has obviously made up your mind about it.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Mrs Mungo

[Slartibartfast]

He was shot in the chest.

 

A body can end up face down after being shot for many reasons, including the person being shot stumbling and falling afterwards.

 

It is also quite possible to shoot someone and not get any of their blood on you, depending upon the angle of the wound and how quickly the move after being shot.

 

Finally, we know that a police report stated that Zimmerman's clothing was "wet", that does not mean there was not any blood at all on the clothing.

 

I am quite amused at how you also ignore the eyewitness who say Martin on top of Zimmerman and reported it was Zimmerman crying for help. This is in contrast to the "witnesses" trotted out by the Martin family attorney who did not actually see any of the event prior to the shooting, but claimed they "knew" it was Martin calling for help.

 

The medical examiner's report hasn't been released so that isn't actually "fact"

 

The police said there was not blood on the clothing.

 

You mean the boy who was walking his dog? Why can one ignore one witness and not another? I guess it is good for people who sometime wear hoodies that a grand jury will be making that decision.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The stories of various witnesses is conflicting, and we don't know what the physical evidence says yet.

 

Not really. Only one witness claims to have seen what happened before the gun shot.

 

 

I don't know that Zimmerman's story is true. *AND* Florida law instructs concealed carry permit holders that they are not de facto police officers. The law instructs people to avoid conflict when possible instead of getting into a conflict where one is armed. He never should have been in the situation.

 

Where did he act as a police officer? Why is there a default assumption that asking Martin why he was there was going to lead to violence?

Just because he should not have been in the situation initially (which legally he had every right to be there) does NOT mean he loses all rights to defend himself *IF* he was attacked by Martin. Even under duty to retreat statutes, if the situation started to escalate and he attempted to leave (which is his claim), he would have been within his rights to defend himself once attacked.

 

 

Neither witness saw how it started, as far as I have seen. I am merely suggesting we wait and see what the remaining evidence will show. You are the one who has obviously made up your mind about it.

 

No, you keep concocting theories, misrepresenting the "911 calls" by Zimmerman, and consistently focusing on non-issues to try and make Zimmerman out as the criminal here.

Zimmerman could very well have murdered Martin, but as of now, no evidence has been reported that shows he did. If that changes, my opinion will change as well. Until then, I will argue against Zimmerman being convicted by the court of public opinion, and I will point out when what little we know about the incident is misrepresented.

[TravelingChris]

I think many of the facts are missing so no one can make a good case for either considering Zimmerman guilty or not guilty. Right now, because of the broken nose and grass stains on the back and the close gunshot wound, I would be much more likely to vote not guilty since self defense always allows you to defend yourself and Martin was much taller, younger, and apparently broke Zimmerman's nose. I don't think either of these two guys were/are great characters. As I have told my dd who is considering becoming a prosecutor many, many, times, most criminal cases consist of unsavory characters being both victims and criminals. It is much rarer when you get an upstanding citizen as a victim.

 

This case depends on evidence- the gunshot trajectory, how close the gun was, did the murdered teen have evidence of being otherwise struck or assaulted other than the gunshot, what evidence of a struggle did the shooter have, witness statements, and possible other evidence.

 

I have no idea why Miami Dade Schools didn't call the police and have Trayvon arrested when he was found with ladies jewelry and burglary tool at school. He should have been. Those items suggest that Trayvon was a burglar and Zimmerman may have had very good reason to suspect him. Since there were so many blacks in the area, I would suspect that it wasn't his race that made him suspicious but rather the way he was walking and acting.

 

Anyway, I don't think this case has anything to do with Stand Your Ground. I think it falls under Self Defense and if that is what Zimmerman's lawyer is claiming, then the burden falls on him to prove it. Apparently. at least at first glance, the police department agreed with that assessment which is why Zimmerman was not charged. Oh and in a self defense case, the victim's background does matter because you have to weigh how likely it is that the victim attacked the perpetrator.

 

So I am reserving judgement and I think more people should do that because without all the facts, a wise judgement cannot be made.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The medical examiner's report hasn't been released so that isn't actually "fact"

 

Actually, the police reported Martin was shot in the chest. An entry wound location is pretty simple to detect, and unless you believe the police are making things up completely now, we can accept that as fact.

 

The police said there was not blood on the clothing.

 

They noted the clothing was wet.

 

You mean the boy who was walking his dog? Why can one ignore one witness and not another? I guess it is good for people who sometime wear hoodies that a grand jury will be making that decision.

 

The boy did not claim to witness the actual physical confrontation.

[Slartibartfast]

Actually, the police reported Martin was shot in the chest. An entry wound location is pretty simple to detect, and unless you believe the police are making things up completely now, we can accept that as fact.

 

 

No? Why would we do that?

 

The medical examiner report includes the entry wound, until that report is released I don't believe anyone is accepting that as fact. The police are not medically trained and know that it can be deceptive, depending on various factors. That is why we have medical examiners.

 

You stated

 

I am quite amused at how you also ignore the eyewitness who say Martin on top of Zimmerman and reported it was Zimmerman crying for help. This is in contrast to the "witnesses" trotted out by the Martin family attorney who did not actually see any of the event prior to the shooting, but claimed they "knew" it was Martin calling for help.

 

But he did HEAR it. He did hear the screams and reported them to his family.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think many of the facts are missing so no one can make a good case for either considering Zimmerman guilty or not

 

I agree with this.

 

I have no idea why Miami Dade Schools didn't call the police and have Trayvon arrested when he was found with ladies jewelry and burglary tool at school. He should have been. Those items suggest that Trayvon was a burglar and Zimmerman may have had very good reason to suspect him

 

The tool was described as a jewelry tool. I have one in my purse. That doesn't make me a burglar.

 

Oh and in a self defense case, the victim's background does matter because you have to weigh how likely it is that the victim attacked the perpetrator.

 

The shooter is the one with a record of assault.

 

 

Where did he act as a police officer? Why is there a default assumption that asking Martin why he was there was going to lead to violence?

Just because he should not have been in the situation initially (which legally he had every right to be there) does NOT mean he loses all rights to defend himself *IF* he was attacked by Martin. Even under duty to retreat statutes, if the situation started to escalate and he attempted to leave (which is his claim), he would have been within his rights to defend himself once attacked.

 

No, you keep concocting theories, misrepresenting the "911 calls" by Zimmerman, and consistently focusing on non-issues to try and make Zimmerman out as the criminal here.

Zimmerman could very well have murdered Martin, but as of now, no evidence has been reported that shows he did. If that changes, my opinion will change as well. Until then, I will argue against Zimmerman being convicted by the court of public opinion, and I will point out when what little we know about the incident is misrepresented.

 

Well, the lawmakers who made the law disagree with you. I posted quotes from them earlier.

[amsunshine]

Actually, the police reported Martin was shot in the chest. An entry wound location is pretty simple to detect, and unless you believe the police are making things up completely now, we can accept that as fact.

 

That's not really accurate. Only the forensic examiners and ultimately the coroner can determine the existence of an entry and/or exit wound. An investigating officer might express an opinion, but he/she is not the expert. In fact, only the testimony of the forensic team would be admissible in court on these issues. Just because there are reports he was shot in the chest doesn't conclusively demonstrate where the entry wound was. I personally would exercise caution in interpreting what has been coming out in the media so far. It sounds like there is a lot more to this case than meets the eye.

Edited March 27, 2012 by amsunshine

[amsunshine]

Oh and in a self defense case, the victim's background does matter because you have to weigh how likely it is that the victim attacked the perpetrator.

 

 

The only background information about the victim that might be admissible would be convictions for assaultive-type crimes. Have there been reports that the victim had any such convictions?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

No? Why would we do that?

 

The medical examiner report includes the entry wound, until that report is released I don't believe anyone is accepting that as fact. The police are not medically trained and know that it can be deceptive, depending on various factors. That is why we have medical examiners.

 

*I* can tell an entry wound from an exit wound in most instances.

 

 

But he did HEAR it. He did hear the screams and reported them to his family.

 

 

No one disputes there were screams. The actual eyewitness account agrees on that point with the one who simply heard part of the altercation. The difference is the eyewitness was able to say who was screaming, while the other has to guess.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

 

Well, the lawmakers who made the law disagree with you. I posted quotes from them earlier.

 

 

No, they don't, which would be clearer if you would actually take the time to apply what was written and think about it, rather than just copying and pasting.

 

To our knowledge, did Zimmerman act as the police? The evidence suggests he did not, considering he did call 911. There is no reason to believe he tried to effect an arrest or in any other way take on police powers. And no, asking someone a question is not acting like the police.

 

As far as the concealed carry law you quoted, Zimmerman's claim is he tried to leave when he was attacked. There is no evidence at this time that he drew his weapon or threatened Martin with it prior to being attacked. What you quoted in no way shows Zimmerman violated the law.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

That's not really accurate. Only the forensic examiners and ultimately the coroner can determine the existence of an entry and/or exit wound. An investigating officer might express an opinion, but he/she is not the expert. In fact, only the testimony of the forensic team would be admissible in court on these issues. Just because there are reports he was shot in the chest doesn't conclusively demonstrate where the entry wound was. I personally would exercise caution in interpreting what has been coming out in the media so far. It sounds like there is a lot more to this case than meets the eye.

 

 

If an investigating officer states someone was shot in the chest, then yes, you can pretty much bank on that being the case, expressly with a gun shot at close range from a handgun. An experienced hunter can figure that much out.

I will also note the family and their attorney have not disputed the police statement that Martin was shot in the chest, and this is not a fact that seems to be in dispute.

[amsunshine]

If an investigating officer states someone was shot in the chest, then yes, you can pretty much bank on that being the case, expressly with a gun shot at close range from a handgun. An experienced hunter can figure that much out.

I will also note the family and their attorney have not disputed the police statement that Martin was shot in the chest, and this is not a fact that seems to be in dispute.

 

I get all that, and you may well be right that the entry wound was to the chest and not the back with an exit would through the chest.

 

I prefer to wait to hear confirmation from the forensic experts. On this we will have to just agree to disagree.

 

The fact that the family and the family's attorney have not disputed the police statement yet does not prove anything. First, any attorney worth his/her salt is not going to try his /her case in the media. Second, they have to wait for and rely on the coroner's report, just like everyone else.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I get all that, and you may well be right that the entry wound was to the chest and not the back with an exit would through the chest.

 

I prefer to wait to hear confirmation from the forensic experts. On this we will have to just agree to disagree.

 

The fact that the family and the family's attorney have not disputed the police statement yet does not prove anything. First, any attorney worth his/her salt is not going to try his /her case in the media. Second, they have to wait for and rely on the coroner's report, just like everyone else.

 

The attorney's from the family have tried this in the public from the start. If they had reason to believe Martin was shot in the back, this would be shouted from the roof tops right now.

 

The forensics experts can tell us a lot more than the police, but if the investigating officer states the gunshot wound was to the chest, you can be pretty safe relying on the assumption he is correct.

[Rivka]

I don't know who threw the first punch, and no one else here does either. It doesn't matter. Whether or not Trayvon Martin swung first is immaterial.

 

Trayvon was walking down the street alone at night when he noticed an SUV following him, watching him. Trayvon tried walking faster. The man still followed him. The stranger got out of the car, chased him as he tried to run away, confronted him. He had no uniform or badge identifying him as a legitimate authority. Trayvon was alone in a strange town, at night, with an angry, armed, unknown man who had been following him in a car and who was apparently hostile toward him for no identifiable reason.

 

What are you teaching your own children about risk? Much has been said about it not being illegal for Zimmerman to follow Trayvon in his car, and it not being illegal for Zimmerman to confront him. Do you teach your own children that a strange man who pursues them at night is breaking no laws? Do you teach your children that they shouldn't be afraid if a man with a gun approaches them in an angry, hostile manner for no reason that they can see, because until he points the gun at them he is committing no crime?

 

Or do you teach your children to run, to fight, to do anything they can to defend themselves when they are in fear for their safety?

 

Under Florida law, as has been exhaustively rehashed, a law-abiding citizen is permitted to use force to defend himself if he believes himself to be in danger of serious harm. That law does not solely apply to Zimmerman. It applied to Trayvon Martin. He was legally entitled to stand his ground. He was legally entitled to use force against the armed, non-uniformed, threatening stranger who had been chasing him.

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

I think many of the facts are missing so no one can make a good case for either considering Zimmerman guilty or not guilty. Right now, because of the broken nose and grass stains on the back and the close gunshot wound, I would be much more likely to vote not guilty since self defense always allows you to defend yourself and Martin was much taller, younger, and apparently broke Zimmerman's nose. I don't think either of these two guys were/are great characters. As I have told my dd who is considering becoming a prosecutor many, many, times, most criminal cases consist of unsavory characters being both victims and criminals. It is much rarer when you get an upstanding citizen as a victim.

 

This case depends on evidence- the gunshot trajectory, how close the gun was, did the murdered teen have evidence of being otherwise struck or assaulted other than the gunshot, what evidence of a struggle did the shooter have, witness statements, and possible other evidence.

 

I have no idea why Miami Dade Schools didn't call the police and have Trayvon arrested when he was found with ladies jewelry and burglary tool at school. He should have been. Those items suggest that Trayvon was a burglar and Zimmerman may have had very good reason to suspect him. Since there were so many blacks in the area, I would suspect that it wasn't his race that made him suspicious but rather the way he was walking and acting.

 

Anyway, I don't think this case has anything to do with Stand Your Ground. I think it falls under Self Defense and if that is what Zimmerman's lawyer is claiming, then the burden falls on him to prove it. Apparently. at least at first glance, the police department agreed with that assessment which is why Zimmerman was not charged. Oh and in a self defense case, the victim's background does matter because you have to weigh how likely it is that the victim attacked the perpetrator.

 

So I am reserving judgement and I think more people should do that because without all the facts, a wise judgement cannot be made.

:iagree:

Unfortunately, most jump to conclusions before all the facts are given, ready to execute based on what the media is feeding them. Hopefully in this case true justice will happen and not be swayed by public outcry.

[Matryoshka]

Under Florida law, as has been exhaustively rehashed, a law-abiding citizen is permitted to use force to defend himself if he believes himself to be in danger of serious harm. That law does not solely apply to Zimmerman. It applied to Trayvon Martin. He was legally entitled to stand his ground. He was legally entitled to use force against the armed, non-uniformed, threatening stranger who had been chasing him.

 

:iagree: Trayvon Martin was the only party who had any reasonable fear for his life in this situation, and I would say the outcome speaks for itself. Why should he not have thrown a punch at the creepy guy following him around at night? But it's okay for the guy following him to "defend" himself against someone he was chasing?

 

What if this had been some crazy guy out looking for a reason to shoot an unarmed black kid in the "wrong" place? Oh, wait....

[amsunshine]

The attorney's from the family have tried this in the public from the start. If they had reason to believe Martin was shot in the back, this would be shouted from the roof tops right now.

 

Have the attorneys discussed specific items of evidence in the case with the media? That would really surprise me. Judges don't appreciate those kinds of shenanigans. I admit, I haven't read everything there is out there about this case, but I haven't seen anything like that so far. If that's true...sheesh!

 

 

The forensics experts can tell us a lot more than the police, but if the investigating officer states the gunshot wound was to the chest, you can be pretty safe relying on the assumption he is correct.

 

Again, on this we are going to have to agree to disagree. You are entitled to your opinion. I'd personally rather wait and hear the evidence from the experts before I form my own opinion one way or the other.

[Joker]

I read today that the investigating officer (not the initial narcotics officer, but the actual homicide investigator) wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter and didn't believe his version of events.

 

He was told (by the state attorney who was asked to step aside for the rest of this investigation) they didn't have enough evidence.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Have the attorneys discussed specific items of evidence in the case with the media? That would really surprise me. Judges don't appreciate those kinds of shenanigans. I admit, I haven't read everything there is out there about this case, but I haven't seen anything like that so far. If that's true...sheesh!

 

[\quote]

 

Yes, but in their defense, that is because they are arguing Zimmerman should have been arrested and charged. They won't be appearing before the criminal court judge, so they would have no concerns with angering the judge.

[SweetBean]

No, she stated that the "duty to retreat" comes into play when he *gets out of his car and chases him*

 

He should not have gotten out of his car. He should not have chased him. Duty to Retreat means you TRY to avoid conflict, you don't actively pursue conflict.

 

:iagree:

 

This should not have happened. No one should end up dead because someone felt they had a right to know what that person was doing (just walking down the street).

 

As the mom of a black son, this makes me sick!

[Lisbeth]

I guess I wouldn't feel qualified to do what the Grand Jury is supposed to be doing. However, by presenting such an unbalanced portrait the media is certainly fanning the flames of racial hatred. (good for ratings, I know!) At first I thought he was a young teen shot in the back while fleeing a crazy white guy with a gun. I was later shocked to learn he was an older teen who had broken the nose of the hispanic guy and bloodied the back of his head.

 

Yep...the media and protesters really jumped the gun.

[Lisbeth]

:iagree:

 

This should not have happened. No one should end up dead because someone felt they had a right to know what that person was doing (just walking down the street).

 

As the mom of a black son, this makes me sick!

 

I think we don't know yet why he ended up dead. Was it because Z asked him a question, and then shot him? Or because Z asked him a question, and was then jumped by T and was being beaten.? We may never know. What is sure is that it has become suspicious by the misrepresentations in the media. They have done this teen no favors.

[Mrs Mungo]

My sister has this friend who didn't understand why she found the ending of Brave New World sad. He didn't understand that John had killed himself. He thought John was sitting on a log or something, happily swinging his feet. Since the narrative doesn't *say* he killed himself, then it could not have happened, the friend thought. He was unable to infer anything or draw a logical conclusion based on the evidence.

 

What evidence (not uncorroborated stories) do we have in this case? We know Zimmerman was not part of a real neighborhood watch program. We know he regularly called the police for sketchy reasons. We know that he was pursuing the teen in question the night of the shooting, because he admits it to the 911 operator.

 

Pursuing potential criminals is not something neighborhood watch is supposed to do. Pursuing potential criminals is not something people with concealed carry permits are supposed to do. Pursuing potential criminals is something police do. When he pursued the teenager *for no reason*, then he was acting as a de facto police officer in that moment. It was something his concealed carry permit class and neighborhood watch class told him not to do.

 

The 911 operator told him that he needed to go back to his truck and wait for police. We don't actually know what happened after that. We only know one side of the story because the other person involved is dead.

 

You can *disagree* with my conclusion, but pretending there is no reason to believe it? That is absurd.

[Slartibartfast]

Apparently there are more witnesses and 911 calls

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/27/justice/florida-teen-shooting-witnesses/

[Jennifer3141]

The only background information about the victim that might be admissible would be convictions for assaultive-type crimes. Have there been reports that the victim had any such convictions?

 

Actually, in this case it is is the SHOOTER who has a physical violence offense on his record - for assaulting a police officer. :glare:

I'll take a pot charge ANY day over that one. Seriously?

 

My son bought Skittles today while wearing a sweatshirt. (I'm 40. I cannot call that a "hoodie" with a straight face. I sound like an idiot and so does Geraldo.)

 

But I watched him with the candy and I thought, "There but for the grace of something..." :(

Edited March 27, 2012 by Jennifer3141

[Truscifi]

Yep...the media and protesters really jumped the gun.

 

The original uproar here locally was because the case was not even being investigated further. Since then the media has gotten out of control, supporters on both sides trying to spin it and assuming facts not in evidence. But if that had not happened, there would have been no further investigation at all.

[ktgrok]

:iagree:

The original uproar here locally was because the case was not even being investigated further. Since then the media has gotten out of control, supporters on both sides trying to spin it and assuming facts not in evidence. But if that had not happened, there would have been no further investigation at all.

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[LucyStoner]

 

You can *disagree* with my conclusion, but pretending there is no reason to believe it? That is absurd.

 

Exactly.

[ma23peas]

I don't know who threw the first punch, and no one else here does either. It doesn't matter. Whether or not Trayvon Martin swung first is immaterial.

 

Trayvon was walking down the street alone at night when he noticed an SUV following him, watching him. Trayvon tried walking faster. The man still followed him. The stranger got out of the car, chased him as he tried to run away, confronted him. He had no uniform or badge identifying him as a legitimate authority. Trayvon was alone in a strange town, at night, with an angry, armed, unknown man who had been following him in a car and who was apparently hostile toward him for no identifiable reason.

 

What are you teaching your own children about risk? Much has been said about it not being illegal for Zimmerman to follow Trayvon in his car, and it not being illegal for Zimmerman to confront him. Do you teach your own children that a strange man who pursues them at night is breaking no laws? Do you teach your children that they shouldn't be afraid if a man with a gun approaches them in an angry, hostile manner for no reason that they can see, because until he points the gun at them he is committing no crime?

 

Or do you teach your children to run, to fight, to do anything they can to defend themselves when they are in fear for their safety?

 

Under Florida law, as has been exhaustively rehashed, a law-abiding citizen is permitted to use force to defend himself if he believes himself to be in danger of serious harm. That law does not solely apply to Zimmerman. It applied to Trayvon Martin. He was legally entitled to stand his ground. He was legally entitled to use force against the armed, non-uniformed, threatening stranger who had been chasing him.

 

These are not facts, only the police have the facts, special interests groups try to paint a different picture...has anyone noticed how the pictures now show a very respectable looking teen and a smiling murderer?

 

Here is a version quite contrary to yours, I claim neither are true until we see the actual interviews and eyewitness accounts.

Zimmerman did follow the victim in his vehicle, then got out and tried to follow him on foot never making contact. He turned around and began walking back to his vehicle, at that time, the victim approached Zimmerman asking him why Zimmerman was following him. Zimmerman replied, "no reason". Then the victim said, "here is your reason" and punched him in the nose sending him to the ground, the victim then proceeded to slam Zimmerman's head into the ground, Zimmerman cried out for help, drew his gun and shot the victim at close range to save himself.

Now, more is coming out about the victim, his twitter acct had a derogatory reference to groups promoting black on white violence, the actual tweets he made were outrageous and not at all what you would expect from the way the media is portraying him. He was suspended three times.

 

I am saying leave it to the justice system, but do not make pleas for me or anyone else to demand outcries from a public that is not only uninformed but often misinformed...none can draw conclusions if you were not there.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

What evidence (not uncorroborated stories) do we have in this case? We know Zimmerman was not part of a real neighborhood watch program. We know he regularly called the police for sketchy reasons. We know that he was pursuing the teen in question the night of the shooting, because he admits it to the 911 operator.

 

Pursuing potential criminals is not something neighborhood watch is supposed to do. Pursuing potential criminals is not something people with concealed carry permits are supposed to do. Pursuing potential criminals is something police do. When he pursued the teenager *for no reason*, then he was acting as a de facto police officer in that moment. It was something his concealed carry permit class and neighborhood watch class told him not to do.

 

Following someone does mean he was acting as a de facto police officer by any reasonable interpretation.

 

The 911 operator told him that he needed to go back to his truck and wait for police. We don't actually know what happened after that. We only know one side of the story because the other person involved is dead.

 

Blatant distortion.

911 dispatcher:

Are you following him? [2:24]

Zimmerman:

Yeah. [2:25]

911 dispatcher:

OK.

We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]

Zimmerman:

OK. [2:28]

 

"We don't need you to do that" /= telling him to go back to his truck and wait for police.

 

You can *disagree* with my conclusion, but pretending there is no reason to believe it? That is absurd.

 

When your conclusion is based on misinterpretations and distortions? Yeah, I can see no reason to believe it with supporting evidence.

[LucyStoner]

Yes, and I have read that Z did not have any of T's blood on him. How do you shoot someone at close range and not be covered in their blood?

 

So, the eyewitness stated he/she actually saw a head smashing incident?

 

And again, if your head is repeatedly smashed into pavement why do you not have injuries requiring medical treatment?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Apparently there are more witnesses and 911 calls

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/27/justice/florida-teen-shooting-witnesses/

 

 

Those have been documented for some time. Note many of the "witnesses" did not actually see anything until after the gun shots.

[Slartibartfast]

Those have been documented for some time. Note many of the "witnesses" did not actually see anything until after the gun shots.

 

 

I get it, you are only interested in the "witness" who supports what you have decided.

 

*yawn*

Edited March 27, 2012 by Sis

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I don't know who threw the first punch, and no one else here does either. It doesn't matter. Whether or not Trayvon Martin swung first is immaterial.

 

Trayvon was walking down the street alone at night when he noticed an SUV following him, watching him. Trayvon tried walking faster. The man still followed him. The stranger got out of the car, chased him as he tried to run away, confronted him. He had no uniform or badge identifying him as a legitimate authority. Trayvon was alone in a strange town, at night, with an angry, armed, unknown man who had been following him in a car and who was apparently hostile toward him for no identifiable reason.

 

What are you teaching your own children about risk? Much has been said about it not being illegal for Zimmerman to follow Trayvon in his car, and it not being illegal for Zimmerman to confront him. Do you teach your own children that a strange man who pursues them at night is breaking no laws? Do you teach your children that they shouldn't be afraid if a man with a gun approaches them in an angry, hostile manner for no reason that they can see, because until he points the gun at them he is committing no crime?

 

Or do you teach your children to run, to fight, to do anything they can to defend themselves when they are in fear for their safety?

 

Under Florida law, as has been exhaustively rehashed, a law-abiding citizen is permitted to use force to defend himself if he believes himself to be in danger of serious harm. That law does not solely apply to Zimmerman. It applied to Trayvon Martin. He was legally entitled to stand his ground. He was legally entitled to use force against the armed, non-uniformed, threatening stranger who had been chasing him.

 

I know I didn't teach our sons to do any of the following:

 

 

"Zimmerman said he lost sight of Martin and began walking back to his SUV; Martin approached him, according to the Sentinel account.

Martin asked Zimmerman if he had a problem; Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police.

 

 

 

 

Martin said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose, Zimmerman said, according to the Sentinel.

Zimmerman said Martin pinned him to the ground and began slamming his head into the sidewalk. The police report described Zimmerman's back as wet and covered with grass, as though he had been lying on the ground.

Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and the back of his head, the police report said.

"I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me," Zimmerman told police.

By the time police arrived on the scene, Martin was dead from a gunshot wound in the chest, according to Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee. The unarmed teenager was lying face-down."

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/27/justice/florida-teen-shooting-witnesses/

 

 

____________

 

 

FYI, *IF* Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle, then no, Martin would not have a self defense claim.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I get it, you are only interested in the "witness" who supports what you have decided.

 

I am bored with talking to you, you are being disrespectful and not listening anyways. *yawn*

 

The witnesses didn't see anything. You put weight behind statements that say "And I feel like it was Trayvon Martin that was crying out, because the minute that the gunshot went off, the whining stopped."

 

Feel like? Not exactly credible. Did you note that the "witnesses" who didn't actually see anything did mention it was dark and they couldn't see? That they heard cries for help and a gunshot. Nothing more.

 

In no way do those contradict what the eyewitness says he saw. Oh, except one "felt" like she knew who was yelling for help.

[Sneezyone]

And why does the investigating officer on the scene that night write up, within 48 hours of the incident, a formal affidavit (you know, one of those legally admissable thingies?) stating that he disbelieved the shooters statement and advocated charges but was told 'no' by the prosecuting attorney?:001_huh: Again, the investigator did this within 48 hours of the killing...hardly time to completely investigate (e.g. get the tox screens back, follow up on phone records, interview all witnesses...etc.). Ya think maybe he thought (despite the blue wall of silence) that the fix was in and he wanted his objection on the record?

[Danestress]

And why does the investigating officer on the scene that night write up, within 48 hours of the incident, a formal affidavit (you know, one of those legally admissable thingies?) stating that he disbelieved the shooters statement and advocated charges but was told 'no' by the prosecuting attorney?

 

Just because you write something up and sign it and call it an affidavit doesn't make it a legally admissible thingy. Lawyers spend a lot of time arguing to judges about whether such thingies are admissible or inadmissible.

[Sneezyone]

Just because you write something up and sign it and call it an affidavit doesn't make it a legally admissible thingy. Lawyers spend a lot of time arguing to judges about whether such thingies are admissible or inadmissible.

 

Since the man is available to testify anyway, no need to argue. Regardless, the fact that he put in in writing (you know, like a confession) and can attest to the fact that those are his thoughts, accurately reflected on the page, makes it admissable. The point is, however, (which you conveniently ignored) that he felt he needed to take such an extraordinary step so soon after the boy's death.

[Jennifer3141]

Since the man is available to testify anyway, no need to argue. Regardless, the fact that he put in in writing (you know, like a confession) and can attest to the fact that those are his thoughts, accurately reflected on the page, makes it admissable. The point is, however, (which you conveniently ignored) that he felt he needed to take such an extraordinary step so soon after the boy's death.

 

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[Joker]

Since the man is available to testify anyway, no need to argue. Regardless, the fact that he put in in writing (you know, like a confession) and can attest to the fact that those are his thoughts, accurately reflected on the page, makes it admissable. The point is, however, (which you conveniently ignored) that he felt he needed to take such an extraordinary step so soon after the boy's death.

 

Maybe because the police weren't doing any of that investigative stuff mentioned above until the story went national. They did no tox screen on the shooter. They had Trayvon's cell phone but did not reach out to the gf he was speaking to during the incident. They seemingly didn't care.

[Slartibartfast]

Maybe because the police weren't doing any of that investigative stuff mentioned above until the story went national. They did no tox screen on the shooter. They had Trayvon's cell phone but did not reach out to the gf he was speaking to during the incident. They seemingly didn't care.

 

They did not even answer the phone while his father was trying to call him. They had him listed as a John Doe at first.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Since the man is available to testify anyway, no need to argue. Regardless, the fact that he put in in writing (you know, like a confession) and can attest to the fact that those are his thoughts, accurately reflected on the page, makes it admissable. The point is, however, (which you conveniently ignored) that he felt he needed to take such an extraordinary step so soon after the boy's death.

 

Is it extraordinary or standard? Isn't he required to file a report on his investigation with his recommendation? I cannot find any reference in any of the articles stating the affidavit itself was out of the ordinary.

[jennynd]

I supposed now is he say she says. We will never know what happened. Oh wait. it is just he say because the other one is dead... And after how many days hiding and come out with "his side of story" knowing what witness might see....

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I supposed now is he say she says. We will never know what happened. Oh wait. it is just he say because the other one is dead... And after how many days hiding and come out with "his side of story" knowing what witness might see....

 

Huh? Zimmerman's story has been leaked from police documents from statements taken that night.