Trayvon Martin...is anyone following??

[KnitWit]

Chocolate Reign, are you in law enforcement or a lawyer? You seem to be so very certain of your views. Do you live in the area where this took place? You almost come across as if you have an inside story so you are making me very curious.

[Sneezyone]

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.

 

No, police officers do not usually or ordinarily put information into their reports to contradict and/or undermine the position of their superiors. Omission, rather than inclusion (i.e. leaving out one's personal opinion when it differs from the party line) is far, far more common. And yeah, I have lots of friends and family both on the law enforcement side and the prosecuting/defense attorney side and this officer's behavior is *not* SOP.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

No, police officers do not usually or ordinarily put information into their reports to contradict and/or undermine the position of their superiors. Omission, rather than inclusion (i.e. leaving out one's personal opinion when it differs from the party line) is far, far more common. And yeah, I have lots of friends and family both on the law enforcement side and the prosecuting/defense attorney side and this officer's behavior is *not* SOP.

 

 

Mmmm...not so fast on that one. In this case, he offered his recommendation. The state's attorney said they did not have enough evidence to pursue charges. That is a bit different than undermining his superiors.

I believe it is possible you are making some assumptions here.

[Sneezyone]

Mmmm...not so fast on that one. In this case, he offered his recommendation. The state's attorney said they did not have enough evidence to pursue charges. That is a bit different than undermining his superiors.

I believe it is possible you are making some assumptions here.

 

Perhaps, I am, but so are you. It is certainly very unusual for an officer to put that kind of recommendation into his reoport when he's already been told to let the guy go, no charges will be filed.

[Mrs Mungo]

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

 

 

 

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.

 

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

 

You are claiming that the neighborhood watch policies are bogus? You are claiming that the government website with instructions to people with concealed carry permits is not legit? They both instruct people *not to pursue suspects* because they are not to act as de facto police officers. It gives that as a reason. Therefore, logically, one can conclude that lawmakers and police consider that pursuing suspects while armed is acting as a de factor police officer. Are you suggesting the officers that design and teach those classes do not understand the implications?

 

And let's pick up the transcript where you left off:

Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.

Zimmerman: Ok

Dispatcher: Alright sir what is your name?

Zimmerman: George…He ran.

Dispatcher: Alright George what's your last name?

Zimmerman: Zimmerman

Dispatcher: And George what's the phone number you're calling from?

Zimmerman: [redacted by Mother Jones]

Dispatcher: Alright George we do have them on the way, do you want to meet with the

officer when they get out there?

Zimmerman: Alright, where you going to meet with them at?

Zimmerman: If they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the

club house, and uh, straight past the club house and make a left, and then they

go past the mailboxes, that’s my truck...[unintelligible]

Dispatcher: What address are you parked in front of?

Zimmerman: I don’t know, it’s a cut through so I don’t know the address.

Dispatcher: Okay do you live in the area?

Zimmerman: Yeah, I...[unintelligible]

Dispatcher: What’s your apartment number?

Zimmerman: It’s a home it’s 1950, oh crap I don’t want to give it all out, I don’t

know where this kid is.

Dispatcher: Okay do you want to just meet with them right near the mailboxes

then?

Zimmerman: Yeah that’s fine.

Dispatcher: Alright George, I’ll let them know to meet you around there okay?

Zimmerman: Actually could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at?

 

He doesn't want to go back and meet them back at the mailboxes. I don't believe that he ceased his pursuit at that point. I believe he initiated the confrontation.

[katilac]

I think it would be stressful to be In a crime ridden neighborhood (with shootings and burglaries that have happend) trying to look out for my neighbors.on top of that, seeing someone who seems suspicious in my neighborhood.... Maybe that is just me....

 

If you mean stressful enough to have your adreniline pumping to the extent of it affecting your reason the way immediate danger would, then yep, just you!

 

Imagine yourself the one on your back getting your head smashed repeatedly into the pavement.

*SMASH*

*SMASH*

*SMASH*

What do you do in this instant? "Please Sir, stop hurting me." :confused:

You're screaming...

"Help!"

"Help!"

"Help!"

Do you just lie there hoping he stops before you die?! :confused:

 

Of course not.

 

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?

 

The problem with this part of the story is that it is completely implausible for someone to have their head smashed into the pavement repeatedly and remain concious. That is utterly unbelievable.

 

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.

 

If Zimmerman "lost sight" of Martin, then by his own statement he was following him (so Martin was walking away from him) and then could no longer see him. Zimmerman does not indicate that Martin stopped, turned around, or spoke to him at any point before this, but suddenly, AFTER he was far enough away that Zimmerman could not see him, he is suddenly confronting Zimmerman at close enough range to knock him down with one punch? What is he, a ninja?

 

I agree that we do not have all the facts, but the facts that we do have make me think that it is not a question of whether Zimmerman is at fault, but a question of how much. Even if I'm wrong, a thorough investigation is called for. Unfortunately, the police did not do enough the night of the shooting or right after, and some evidence is gone forever.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Perhaps, I am, but so are you. It is certainly very unusual for an officer to put that kind of recommendation into his reoport when he's already been told to let the guy go, no charges will be filed.

 

Are you certain of your timeline? It seems to me that he filed his recommendation for manslaughter, and the state attorney then determined that they did not have enough evidence. That would be the normal order of events...

You are making this out to seem that filing an affidavit with his recommendation is out of the norm, and I am not certain that it is. It is not unusual in many areas for an investigator to suggest charges be filed and the DA's office determine there is not enough evidence to secure a conviction.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

You are claiming that the neighborhood watch policies are bogus? You are claiming that the government website with instructions to people with concealed carry permits is not legit? They both instruct people *not to pursue suspects* because they are not to act as de facto police officers. It gives that as a reason. Therefore, logically, one can conclude that lawmakers and police consider that pursuing suspects while armed is acting as a de factor police officer. Are you suggesting the officers that design and teach those classes do not understand the implications?

 

No, I am claiming you have, at best, a minimal understanding of what you are quoting.

 

And let's pick up the transcript where you left off:

He was never ordered back to the truck.

 

He doesn't want to go back and meet them back at the mailboxes. I don't believe that he ceased his pursuit at that point. I believe he initiated the confrontation.

Based on...?

Again, even if he "initiated a confrontation", as long as all he did was ask a question, then he is within the law. Until someone can show he did anything else to provoke an attack, then there is no reason to disbelieve his account.

[amsunshine]

He doesn't want to go back and meet them back at the mailboxes. I don't believe that he ceased his pursuit at that point. I believe he initiated the confrontation.

 

I have to agree. This 911 call does not sound favorable at all for Mr. Z. It will be so very interesting to find out exactly happened next.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

 

The problem with this part of the story is that it is completely implausible for someone to have their head smashed into the pavement repeatedly and remain concious. That is utterly unbelievable.

 

Depends on how many times and with how much force.

 

 

If Zimmerman "lost sight" of Martin, then by his own statement he was following him (so Martin was walking away from him) and then could no longer see him. Zimmerman does not indicate that Martin stopped, turned around, or spoke to him at any point before this, but suddenly, AFTER he was far enough away that Zimmerman could not see him, he is suddenly confronting Zimmerman at close enough range to knock him down with one punch? What is he, a ninja?

 

1.) Zimmerman never denies initially following Martin.

2.) We are not certain of the time lapse and terrain, depending on a few variables, Zimmerman could have been quite close to Martin and not known he was.

3.) One punch from behind can put someone on the ground fairly easily.

 

I agree that we do not have all the facts, but the facts that we do have make me think that it is not a question of whether Zimmerman is at fault, but a question of how much. Even if I'm wrong, a thorough investigation is called for. Unfortunately, the police did not do enough the night of the shooting or right after, and some evidence is gone forever.

[Slartibartfast]

Mother Jones has some of the tapes on their website

 

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/what-happened-trayvon-martin-explained

Edited March 28, 2012 by Sis

[Sneezyone]

Are you certain of your timeline? It seems to me that he filed his recommendation for manslaughter, and the state attorney then determined that they did not have enough evidence. That would be the normal order of events...

You are making this out to seem that filing an affidavit with his recommendation is out of the norm, and I am not certain that it is. It is not unusual in many areas for an investigator to suggest charges be filed and the DA's office determine there is not enough evidence to secure a conviction.

 

That makes no sense at all. If the officer made his recommendation to prosecute before the prosecuting attorney made a decision about prosecuting, the investigation would have continued and an arrest would have been made, because that's what the investigating officer recommended/wanted. But that's not what happened. What seems far more plausible is that the officer was already told that the prosecutor was not interested in the case, he was overruled, so he put his objection in writing and then let Zimmerman go, without arrest. The officer was covering his butt. Smart man. Remember, this affidavit was made within 48 hours of the death, according to ABC News, the same night of the death.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Sneezyone

[Mrs Mungo]

No, I am claiming you have, at best, a minimal understanding of what you are quoting.

 

 

You keep saying that. Want to offer something to back up your claim? And no, "because you say so" isn't proof.

[Jennifer3141]

I know some/many of you have spouses or other family members involved in police forces around the country. I have a question... I keep reading that the police are "leaking information about the case." Why are they doing that? Why are they "leaking" information instead of having real press conferences?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

That makes no sense at all. If the officer made his recommendation to prosecute before the prosecuting attorney made a decision about prosecuting, the investigation would have continued and an arrest would have been made, because that's what the investigating officer recommended/wanted. But that's not what happened. What seems far more plausible is that the officer was already told that the prosecutor was not interested in the case, he was overruled, so he put his objection in writing and then let Zimmerman go, without arrest. He was covering his butt. Smart man.

 

That is simply not correct. Also, keep in mind that the investigation did continue for a couple of additional days, at least according to some of the witnesses who said they were interviewed on days following the shooting.

 

The officer signed the affidavit that night, and it is just as plausible the state attorney looked at the initial evidence and determined that there was not enough evidence to prosecute at that time.

 

If signing the affidavit falls well outside the norm of the investigator's duties, then I would be more likely to believe your version of events.

 

I missed your edit. The affidavit was signed THAT NIGHT.

"Serino filed an affidavit on Feb. 26, the night that Martin was shot and killed by Zimmerman, that stated he was unconvinced Zimmerman's version of events."

http://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-investigator-wanted-manslaughter-charge-151838720--abc-news-topstories.html

 

Which is why I tend to think the affidavit was procedural.

Edited March 28, 2012 by ChocolateReignRemix

[Sneezyone]

I know some/many of you have spouses or other family members involved in police forces around the country. I have a question... I keep reading that the police are "leaking information about the case." Why are they doing that? Why are they "leaking" information instead of having real press conferences?

 

It's not so different from the military. These folks are not authorized to talk on the record. The Sanford PD is technically not even involved in the case anymore but none of them want to be demonized for 'sloppy police work' or a 'shoddy investigation'. By the same token, Zimmerman's folks have an interest in bolstering his image and making Trayvon the bad guy. At this point, almost all of these leaks are intended to cloud the issue and reduce the liability (civil or criminal) of all of the parties involved.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

That is simply not correct. Also, keep in mind that the investigation did continue for a couple of additional days, at least according to some of the witnesses who said they were interviewed on days following the shooting.

 

The officer signed the affidavit that night, and it is just as plausible the state attorney looked at the initial evidence and determined that there was not enough evidence to prosecute at that time.

 

If signing the affidavit falls well outside the norm of the investigator's duties, then I would be more likely to believe your version of events.

 

Which part, exactly, is incorrect? The part about the affidavit being signed on the night they let Z go or the fact that the decision to *not* prosecute was made before the investigation was complete (it's STILL ongoing BTW) or the part about law enforcement officers being reluctant to publically oppose their superiors?

 

What makes more sense...that they didn't arrest b/c they were told the prosecutor wasn't interested or they didn't arrest because they felt they had no cause (which means the investigating officer lied in his affidavit about disbelieving Z that night??).

Edited March 28, 2012 by Sneezyone

[Slartibartfast]

I think this is troubling

 

Why is the history of the Sanford Police Department in question?

 

Sanford PD's officers have suffered a series of public missteps in recent years, according to local reporters. In 2006 two private security guards—the son of a Sanford police officer, and a volunteer for the department—killed a black teen with a single gunshot in his back. Even though they admitted to never identifying themselves, the guards were released without charges. In 2009, after an assailant allegedly attempted to rape a child in her home, the department was called to task for sitting on the suspect's fingerprints, delaying identification and pursuit of the attacker.

 

Perhaps the most significant incident occurred in late 2010: Justin Collison, the son of a Sanford PD lieutenant, sucker-punched a homeless black man outside a bar, and officers on the scene released Collison without charges. He eventually surrendered after video of the incident materialized online. The police chief at the time was ultimately forced into retirement. "Bottom line, we didn't do our job that night," a Police Department representative told WFTV of the incident. The TV station later learned that the Sanford patrol sergeant in charge on the night of Collison's assault, Anthony Raimondo, was also the first supervisor on the scene of Trayvon Martin's shooting death.

 

As a result of these incidents and their initial handling of Martin's death, the Sanford Police Department has been under increased scrutiny. Martin's parents have suggested they might call for Police Chief Bill Lee to resign.

 

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/what-happened-trayvon-martin-explained

 

Seeing how Zimmerman is well connected, him being the son of a retired judge, I suppose it isn't surprising if there is a history of them being lenient on connected individuals.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Sis

[Danestress]

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.

 

I haven't ignored anything "so conveniently.". I am enjoying reading this thread and following the discussion. I haven't argued anything here one way or the other, just jumped in to clarify a legal point.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Which part, exactly, is incorrect? The part about the affidavit being signed on the night they let Z go or the fact that the decision to *not* prosecute was made before the investigation was complete (it's STILL ongoing BTW) or the part about law enforcement officers being reluctant to publically oppose their superiors?

 

What makes more sense...that they didn't arrest b/c they were told the prosecutor wasn't interested or they didn't arrest because they felt they had no cause (which means the investigating officer lied in his affidavit about disbelieving Z that night??).

 

1.) The investigation was still ongoing at that time. You claim that it stopped, and used that to support your claim the affidavit was in defiance of the the investigator's superiors.

2.) You kept stating the affidavit was signed within 48 hours. It was signed that night, which makes it less likely it was being used to cover the officer's "butt".

[Sneezyone]

I haven't ignored anything "so conveniently.". I am enjoying reading this thread and following the discussion. I haven't argued anything here one way or the other, just jumped in to clarify a legal point.

 

I'm sorry if you interpreted that as belligerent. I can be a bit sarcastic, but belligerent? No. :001_huh:

[Sneezyone]

1.) The investigation was still ongoing at that time. You claim that it stopped, and used that to support your claim the affidavit was in defiance of the the investigator's superiors.

2.) You kept stating the affidavit was signed within 48 hours. It was signed that night, which makes it less likely it was being used to cover the officer's "butt".

 

It did stop...for atime. They let Z go without arrest STOP. They decided not to order a tox screen. STOP. They decided not to take Z's clothes or run ballistics tests. STOP.

 

Do you honestly believe that they left T in the morgue for 3 days while the officer investigating remained blissfully ignorant of the coverup underway? You honestly believe that he didn't know he needed to cover his butt...immediately? that night? While the investigation was effectively being stopped (no tests ordered or run)? If you do then I have a bridge in Alaska to sell you.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It did stop...for atime. They let Z go without arrest STOP. They decided not to order a tox screen. STOP. They decided not to take Z's clothes or run ballistics tests. STOP.

 

And witness interviews continued. Btw, no ballistics test was needed, as the weapon used was not in dispute.

 

Do you honestly believe that they left T in the morgue for 3 days while the officer investigating remained blissfully ignorant of the coverup underway? You honestly believe that he didn't know he needed to cover his butt...immediately? that night? While the investigation was effectively being stopped (no tests ordered or run)? If you do then I have a bridge in Alaska to sell you.

 

The officer signed his affidavit that night. Sounds more like SOP.

[LucyStoner]

Sounds more like SOP.

 

You know, all I really know now is that your personal SOP appears to be to call everyone else's information false and repeat, over and over, that anyone who has the audacity to merely disagree with you is using faulty logic or does not know how to read. Nor is this the first thread that you have posted on in this fashion, calling people out as more or less dumb for not sharing your opinion. It's old.

 

*sigh*

[Sneezyone]

And witness interviews continued. Btw, no ballistics test was needed, as the weapon used was not in dispute.

 

 

 

The officer signed his affidavit that night. Sounds more like SOP.

 

Sounds like, but it's not and no amount of saying it is can make it so. The officers on the scene did the bare minimum to maintain appearances. The question is why. If they were truly intending to pursue the investigation *they* and not the media would have learned he was on the phone at the time of the altercation and contacted the person on the other end of that call. The fact that the officer recommended charges that night, despite the lack of any forensic work suggests that he was covering his butt; he certainly wasn't at work "investigating". If I were that officer, or his friends, I'd probably be leaking the affidavit news too. Chances are pretty good someone was going to hang him out to dry as a shoddy officer.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

You know, all I really know now is that your personal SOP appears to be to call everyone else's information false and repeat, over and over, that anyone who has the audacity to merely disagree with you is using faulty logic or does not know how to read. Nor is this the first thread that you have posted on in this fashion, calling people out as more or less dumb for not sharing your opinion. It's old.

 

*sigh*

 

People have repeatedly posted false information in this thread. If they don't want it pointed out, they shouldn't post it.

[Slartibartfast]

People have repeatedly posted false information in this thread. If they don't want it pointed out, they shouldn't post it.

 

Where?

 

Prove it false.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Sounds like, but it's not and no amount of saying it is can make it so. The officers on the scene did the bare minimum to maintain appearances. The question is why. If they were truly intending to pursue the investigation *they* and not the media would have learned he was on the phone at the time of the altercation and contacted the person on the other end of that call. The fact that the officer recommended charges that night, despite the lack of any forensic work suggests that he was covering his butt; he certainly wasn't at work "investigating". If I were that officer, or his friends, I'd probably be leaking the affidavit news too. Chances are pretty good someone was going to hang him out to dry as a shoddy officer.

 

Wait...what? How do we know the affidavit is not SOP for that department? The fact that he filed an affidavit was not noted as the newsworthy item in any report I read. I suspect that is because the filing wasn't abnormal, but I do not know that for certain.

[Sneezyone]

Wait...what? How do we know the affidavit is not SOP for that department? The fact that he filed an affidavit was not noted as the newsworthy item in any report I read. I suspect that is because the filing wasn't abnormal, but I do not know that for certain.

 

Oh, you mean like the BREAKING NEWS banner at ABC news or the story I linked to not an hour ago? LOL. Off to swimming lessons...

[LucyStoner]

People have repeatedly posted false information in this thread. If they don't want it pointed out, they shouldn't post it.

 

You have posted nothing to indicate that your information has more basis than anyone else's information. Or did I miss some facts and links and outside quotes in your posts that say with some basis in reality that Zimmerman's story is 100% factual? You ignore some pretty plain factual information about the 911 call, the history of wannabe cop behavior and history of violent and aggressive behavior. I am pretty sure you know how to read and are not dense, and calling people dumb is not how I roll. So I'll just have to conclude that you have forgotten that calling people dumb is not a valid debate technique past childhood.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

You have posted nothing to indicate that your information has more basis than anyone else's information. Or did I miss some facts and links and outside quotes in your posts that say with some basis in reality that Zimmerman's story is 100% factual? You ignore some pretty plain factual information about the 911 call, the history of wannabe cop behavior and history of violent and aggressive behavior. I am pretty sure you know how to read and are not dense, and calling people dumb is not how I roll. So I'll just have to conclude that you have forgotten that calling people dumb is not a valid debate technique past childhood.

 

I have not called anyone "dumb", so that dog will not hunt. I have posted numerous links correcting incorrect information posted in this thread.

 

I do not know if Zimmerman's story is 100% factual. I do know that this time no one has provided any evidence contradicting it.

 

And FTR, the person I have clashed with the most in this thread (Mrs. Mungo) is generally the person I agree with the most on this board, and would be one of my favorites among all members.

Edited March 28, 2012 by ChocolateReignRemix

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Oh, you mean like the BREAKING NEWS banner at ABC news or the story I linked to not an hour ago? LOL. Off to swimming lessons...

 

The breaking news was the content of the affidavit. Your story of why it was filed has not been present in anything I have read.

[Slartibartfast]

I have not called anyone "dumb", so that dog will not hunt. I have posted numerous links correcting incorrect information posted in this thread.

 

I do not know if Zimmerman's story is 100% factual. I do know that this time no one has provided any evidence contradicting it.

 

And FTR, the person I have clashed with the most in this thread (Mrs. Mungo) is generally the person I agree with the most on this board, and would be one of my favorites among all members.

 

You said,

 

No, I am claiming you have, at best, a minimal understanding of what you are quoting.

 

Which I felt was rude.

 

She responded with,

 

You keep saying that. Want to offer something to back up your claim? And no, "because you say so" isn't proof.

 

You have not done so.

[LucyStoner]

I have not called anyone "dumb"

 

Not in so many words. Anyways, I have seen this pattern of you making pointed remarks about reading skills, understanding of subjects and "faulty logic" of people in disagreement with you repeated on threads where I both disagree and agree with the views you are pushing. You really come across as someone who is quite convinced there is only one way to look at anything, your way. I see nothing in this thread by you that changes the cumulative picture of what I have seen, heard and read here and elsewhere that there is something more to the homicide of Trayvon Martin than the shooter and his friend's statements, no matter how often you claim to have offered otherwise.

Edited March 28, 2012 by kijipt

[Mrs Mungo]

I have not called anyone "dumb", so that dog will not hunt. I have posted numerous links correcting incorrect information posted in this thread.

 

But nothing to counter what I said about Neighborhood Watch or the concealed carry scenarios. The witness who has come forward on behalf of Zimmerman said that Zimmerman stopped a burglary of his home while Zimmerman was on his "nightly patrol." I think it is easy to draw a logical conclusion that Zimmerman *was* playing police officer. You say that I am wrong, but you offer nothing to back it up.

 

I do not know if Zimmerman's story is 100% factual. I do know that this time no one has provided any evidence contradicting it.

 

Like I said before, I am unwilling to accept his story at face value. Therefore, we are operating from different assumptions. But, you cannot claim "fact" any more than I can unless there is some serious corroborating evidence (more than a broken nose).

 

Ultimately my problem is two-fold:

1. I think Zimmerman was behaving in an incorrect manner, and this is why Neighborhood Watch programs actively discourage the type of behavior that he displayed that night.

 

2. I think SYG is too broad and would let him off even if there was not so much reasonable doubt for self-defense.

 

Eta: Okay, three-fold 3. The only way Zimmerman will go to jail, IMO, is if there is proof that he laid hands on Martin first.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Mrs Mungo

[ChocolateReignRemix]

You said,

 

 

 

Which I felt was rude.

 

She responded with,

 

 

 

You have not done so.

 

 

I will. I missed that. I am fussing with 5-6 people in this thread.

[ma23peas]

I want to share a different side to 'neighborhood watch'....last September, our community (not gated, but rural...we live on 8 acres but our house is right on a busy street...there is a strip of about 12 houses across this street from us) was plagued with crime.

 

Event one: On 11am, a mother was breast-feeding her 6 day old when someone knocked on the door. She was not going to answer it so she ignored it thinking it was a salesman. Within seconds, the person KICKED open her bolted door and came in, she began screaming, carried her baby to the bathroom locked it and called 911. Luckily, the screaming threw the invader off and he ran. It took our County's sheriff's cars over 30 minutes to get to her!! Do you know why? Budget. We live in a spread out county..at any one time there are only 4 cars on patrol...they have requested 4 years in a row for increase patrol...denied. Our county has grown a great deal with many coming from VA to move here (base realignments) and they are putting the money into roads not protection.

 

Event two: THE VERY NEXT DAY!!! At 10:00am...same thing..someone knocked on another of the houses...a 17 year old was in the shower, her brother was in his room (her brother owns the house, she was visiting). The door was kicked in and the girl was panicked...the brother raced to get his gun out of storage and began shouting (I heard the shouting-was out walking my dogs) then he came out and the perpetrator had a getaway car he jumped in and they sped off...the owner shot twice at them.

 

Events 3-20: The next month, a 13x criminal (meaning he has been ARRESTED 13x in one year for burglary) moved in next door to us (unbeknownst to me)....he was only 22 years old, but has a rap sheet that is ridiculous. All we knew was that starting mid-September EVERY night someone was stealing from the homes across the street. Two men were fearful for their children/families so they bought security systems/night vision goggles/shot guns. I was scared but not too badly, all the breakins had been on cars and storage sheds, none in the home. Then, we were hit, he broke into our van and stole an Xbox system (dh's company uses it for team building) and a 21 inch monitor. We then checked our storage shed and it looked like nothing had disappeared. The neighbors however were more and more agitated. They shot at least every other night at the idiot. I was fearful for my horses/children and at the time did not know it was the type of shot that would not kill anything but would definitely hurt them. But, hearing gun shots every other night is NOT a good thing.

 

The point is...when an area has been hit by crime, you expect the local authorities to take note. All our authorities could do was make sure a car patrolled here at night..sure, he may patrol for 30 minutes, but the idiot comes after you leave...hitting about 1am-2am. One night, they actually chased him into the woods behind our farm....(I know he had been in our barn to find saddles and such, would find the light left on during the night)..the sheriff's car got here in 25 minutes...but they refused to chase him in the woods...so another report (over 12 in 2 weeks!) was filed.

 

But, our sense of security was dashed and my neighbors were ready to kill this man. As providence would have it, I prayed a good deal about it...one Sunday morning (at 5:45am) I had the nudge to walk the dogs..never before 7 do I do this..but this morning I thought I needed to...as soon as I opened the door, there in front of my eyes was the burglar carrying items!! (Later, I would find it was my weedeater and DVD player) I called out to him and told him to STOP that I wanted to talk to him. Don't know what made him stop, but he did. He met me at the fence and we spoke for 30 minutes...I learned a great deal about his life..long story short, yes, his life is horrific and he will never stop what he's doing. Since catching him, he was put back in jail (still awaiting trial on the first 13 counts that started over 18 months ago!)...he was released on bond 4 weeks later (how do I know, the idiot has a FAcebook page and I've been stalking him to make sure I know his whereabouts!) rearrested, re-released FOUR times since then!! Now, he's cancelled his FB page, I think he has 'run' to avoid being brought to trial.

 

So, don't be too quick to judge those neighborhood watch programs..sometimes they are all we have to protect ourselves b/c those vowing to serve and protect just can't get here in time. OH! and to add, I went back to that storage shed and he had cleaned us out, even taking a briefcase I had of all my husband's and my pictures from our first year together (every valentine's card etc.) my neighbor (who was his godfather) found it when he was cleaning out the motor home the perp had been living in...I was happy at least to get that back, but he stole over 5k worth of stuff from us..things you'd never think he'd be able to carry!

Edited March 28, 2012 by ma23peas

[Jennifer3141]

Ma23, I saw this with all gentleness but if someone moved in next door to me who had 13 arrests for burglarly... DH and I would secure the wits out of our property. And we'd rest in the knowledge that someone who has been arrested 13 times simply IS going back to jail.

 

I have zero problem with you defending your home. If the burglar happens to break in while you are in bed and you blow his head off with a shotgun, well that's basically one of the hazards of his "job." But pursuing him, that's another story. That is the job of the police and in no way, shape or form would I allow a family member to do that. I would not take the risk that a career criminal wouldn't be a better shooter/fighter than any member of my family.

 

While you're chasing him, are your neighbors chasing him too? Just what I'd want... to be caught in the crossfire of a couple of ticked off homeowners and a pumped up criminal. That's a recipe for DISASTER!!!!!!

 

Heck, I've got 17 year old neighbor boys who get all hopped up on shooting deer during hunting season. I've had to make a rule that they are no longer allowed on my property. I cannot imagine these kids chasing a criminal through my backyard!!! They'd blow out all my windows, wing a cat, and kill one of my kids. :glare:

 

I get that the burglar might get away. And losing one's stuff justs stinks. But I'd so much rather lose my trinkets than my KID or my DH. SYG is getting innocent people murdered and it has the potential to do so much more damage.

 

We had a known pedophile at the park two summers ago. You know what worked? Taking his PICTURE and calling the cops. They weren't there immediately but this guy knew that three moms had his pic, he wasn't getting anywhere NEAR the kids, and he was busted. He sat down on the bench and waited for the cops to come because he knew we had him.

[ma23peas]

Ma23, I saw this with all gentleness but if someone moved in next door to me who had 13 arrests for burglarly... DH and I would secure the wits out of our property. And we'd rest in the knowledge that someone who has been arrested 13 times simply IS going back to jail.

 

I have zero problem with you defending your home. If the burglar happens to break in while you are in bed and you blow his head off with a shotgun, well that's basically one of the hazards of his "job." But pursuing him, that's another story. That is the job of the police and in no way, shape or form would I allow a family member to do that. I would not take the risk that a career criminal wouldn't be a better shooter/fighter than any member of my family.

 

While you're chasing him, are your neighbors chasing him too? Just what I'd want... to be caught in the crossfire of a couple of ticked off homeowners and a pumped up criminal. That's a recipe for DISASTER!!!!!!

 

Heck, I've got 17 year old neighbor boys who get all hopped up on shooting deer during hunting season. I've had to make a rule that they are no longer allowed on my property. I cannot imagine these kids chasing a criminal through my backyard!!! They'd blow out all my windows, wing a cat, and kill one of my kids. :glare:

 

I get that the burglar might get away. And losing one's stuff justs stinks. But I'd so much rather lose my trinkets than my KID or my DH. SYG is getting innocent people murdered and it has the potential to do so much more damage.

 

We had a known pedophile at the park two summers ago. You know what worked? Taking his PICTURE and calling the cops. They weren't there immediately but this guy knew that three moms had his pic, he wasn't getting anywhere NEAR the kids, and he was busted. He sat down on the bench and waited for the cops to come because he knew we had him.

 

To clarify, we had NO idea this man moved in next to us...we've lived here 5 years, our two neighbors consist of an elderly touched man (mentally handicapped) and his nephew who takes care of him. Apparently, this criminal was the nephew's godson...we had never seen another person over there besides the two we knew. Only the day I caught him did I realize he was living there.

 

I disagree with you wholeheartedly, we do not own a shotgun, I am against guns in the house, but honestly, the next paycheck bonus I am getting a 12 gauge! The point is, the authorities do not have the ability to protect us...we do.

 

I never chased him once! IT was my two neighbors..I simply caught him walking out the door, did not chase him, asked him to stop and he did. Burglary escalates to violent crimes, you have no idea if they have a weapon, they are brazen...we have every right to protect life and property, period.

[Mrs Mungo]

So, don't be too quick to judge those neighborhood watch programs..sometimes they are all we have to protect ourselves b/c those vowing to serve and protect just can't get here in time.

 

I am not judging neighborhood watch programs, quite the opposite. I am saying that registered neighborhood watch programs have rules, they do training. The rules state over and over that you are *watch* programs. That doesn't mean that private citizens are supposed to do armed patrols in their neighborhoods, questioning anyone and everyone. The situation that arose in this case is *exactly* why the police don't want that.

 

I have zero problem with you defending your home. If the burglar happens to break in while you are in bed and you blow his head off with a shotgun, well that's basically one of the hazards of his "job." But pursuing him, that's another story. That is the job of the police and in no way, shape or form would I allow a family member to do that. I would not take the risk that a career criminal wouldn't be a better shooter/fighter than any member of my family.

 

While you're chasing him, are your neighbors chasing him too? Just what I'd want... to be caught in the crossfire of a couple of ticked off homeowners and a pumped up criminal. That's a recipe for DISASTER!!!!!!

 

Exactly.

 

Eta: I am not against guns in the house. And a shotgun is a great thing, if you aren't a particularly good shot. I would not hesitate to shoot someone in my home.

 

In fact, I will tell my own story. One of the times my dh was gone, I woke up, wide awake in the dead of night because I thought I heard a man's voice. My bedroom was close to the next-door neighbor's house. He was a single dad with a dd, but I knew they were out of town. I looked out my window, but didn't see anything. I flipped on my bedroom light. I tool my shotgun and my flashlight and opened my back door. I stood at the door with the gun and flashlight. I slowly waved the flashlight all around the yard. I didn't see or hear anything else. The next morning I found out the the neighbor's door had been busted down, but they didn't actually steal anything. When I told the neighbor and police what I heard and did, we realized that I probably scared them off and that is why nothing had been stolen. But, I never would have chased and confronted a random teen walking in the neighborhood, much less if I were carrying a gun. There is a world of difference.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Mrs Mungo

[ravinlunachick]

Did no one notice the link I posted earlier that says the DOJ has a tape of a 911 call made by Trayvon?

 

That speaks volumes to me about whether Trayvon was the aggressor. Criminals rarely call 911 for help.

[ma23peas]

I am not judging neighborhood watch programs, quite the opposite. I am saying that registered neighborhood watch programs have rules, they do training. The rules state over and over that you are *watch* programs. That doesn't mean that private citizens are supposed to do armed patrols in their neighborhoods, questioning anyone and everyone. The situation that arose in this case is *exactly* why the police don't want that.

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

We have no 'watch' program, but we are watching our homes, property, families. Forget all the bureaucracy associated with 'planned programs'..when you perceive a threat..and have known crime to happen (I do believe Zimmerman's home had been burglarized in the past)..it puts you on alert...Zimmerman only followed the gentleman, believe me, I have followed about 5 cars that were suspicious in my area...took down their license plate and let them know I was home and saw what they did.

 

One car kept coming on to my neighbor's property (circular drive that circles the house) my neighbor (another one) lives in Florida half the year, I just assumed it was someone checking on his property, but my daughter said he had come by 3-4x that week and looked at her funny that it scared her...I caught him 'casing' the property and ran out there to get a license plate, he had none. Two days later, he was pulled over for not having a license plate...I tried to walk across to let the patrol car know our suspicions but they left. Long story short, the police are not here to catch all that we see...we have to be diligent. Our own patrolman said I need a gun, that they can not get here quick enough...shoot to kill were his words. I never thought I could do that...for property, probably not, but for my kids...absolutely!

 

I have had to be diligent because homeschooling we're home many days when these break-ins happen...I make sure people know I'm watching. According to published news, Zimmerman did NOT make contact with him, he followed him...I have every right to do this if I suspect something going on...he turned around to go back to his truck, that is when he was contacted by the victim...I just do not like people forming their own conclusions and not seeing the whole picture. Having been threatened with break-ins..it makes you very uneasy and aware...

[Mrs Mungo]

Did no one notice the link I posted earlier that says the DOJ has a tape of a 911 call made by Trayvon?

 

I saw it, but that is the only place that I have seen that information. I tried to find it from another source and couldn't.

 

That speaks volumes to me about whether Trayvon was the aggressor. Criminals rarely call 911 for help.

 

I think that is one of the arguments that CR is using to defend Zimmerman.

[Mrs Mungo]

According to published news, Zimmerman did NOT make contact with him, he followed him...I have every right to do this if I suspect something going on...he turned around to go back to his truck, that is when he was contacted by the victim...I just do not like people forming their own conclusions and not seeing the whole picture.

 

That is Zimmerman's story. If he was the aggressor, then he has little leeway under SYG or Self-Defense. His dad is a judge. He has extremely good motivation to say that is what happened.

 

Having been threatened with break-ins..it makes you very uneasy and aware...

 

Have you read my posts? Btdt.

[KnitWit]

Did no one notice the link I posted earlier that says the DOJ has a tape of a 911 call made by Trayvon?

 

That speaks volumes to me about whether Trayvon was the aggressor. Criminals rarely call 911 for help.

 

I saw it and could not find that info anywhere else. I wondered why there is a dispatch record on Zimmerman's call, but not on Trayvon's if it is legit.

 

I have wondered WHY Trayvon didn't get off the phone with the gf and call 911. However, I have been in the situation where I thought someone was following me and just continued talking to a friend, but TOLD them to be ready to call 911, and it turned out to be paranoia on my part. I'm sure that if Trayvon was truly minding his own business and just walking home, the same thing could be true for him...if he wasn't doing anything wrong, why should he be followed?

[ma23peas]

I saw it and could not find that info anywhere else. I wondered why there is a dispatch record on Zimmerman's call, but not on Trayvon's if it is legit.

 

I have wondered WHY Trayvon didn't get off the phone with the gf and call 911. However, I have been in the situation where I thought someone was following me and just continued talking to a friend, but TOLD them to be ready to call 911, and it turned out to be paranoia on my part. I'm sure that if Trayvon was truly minding his own business and just walking home, the same thing could be true for him...if he wasn't doing anything wrong, why should he be followed?

 

The biggest question here is if you were followed, would you attack your follower? Not unless they attacked first. As stated before you have a young man who has been in trouble in the past, whose tweets are beyond vulgar, and whose twitter name is referred to as black on white aggression...Zimmerman just picked the wrong person to follow. The witnesses state it was Zimmerman being attacked not the other way around...and someone stated why did Zimmerman not have injuries..

 

"

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

 

I just hate reading comments from people who do not wait for the truth to get out but just jump to conclusions.

It is a tragedy, but have any of us ever made a poor decision? I think Zimmerman AND Trayvon both made poor decisions and there was a bad result...

[amsunshine]

I'm sure that if Trayvon was truly minding his own business and just walking home, the same thing could be true for him...if he wasn't doing anything wrong, why should he be followed?

 

 

This is the part that is most troubling to me. From what I've read, Zimmerman, driving his truck, started following Trayvon, who was on foot. It was dark and raining. At this point, I think anyone in Trayvon's shoes would start to get anxious, i.e., why is this random person following me?

 

Zimmerman calls 911 and says something like "these a**holes always get away", among other things, which suggest he is hyped up and thinks he's on the trail of some criminal. He also says Trayvon is acting weird. Well, I'm not surprised -- he was being followed at night, in the rain, by some random person in a truck. Zimmerman says he has something in his hands. Umm, yeah. Some skittles and a drink.

 

Then, even though the 911 operator tries to get Zimmerman to agree to wait for police by some mailboxes instead of following Trayvon, Zimmerman doesn't do so. He gets out of his truck and it appears he starts following Trayvon on foot.

 

Honestly, I think anyone in Trayvon's shoes would rightfully be freaking out right at that time. We don't know exactly what transpired next, but we know Trayvon ended up shot.

 

It seems to me Zimmerman set in motion the events that led to Trayvon's death. He decided, for whatever reason, that Trayvon was an "a**hole" who wasn't going to "get away" this time. Did Trayvon punch the guy? I don't know, but I would think that someone in Trayvon's position who was in fear for his life might reasonably react that way. Did it justify Zimmerman's actions in shooting him? I don't know yet. I don't think we have enough facts to show that yet. I know that, at least in California, the use of deadly force is justified only when it appears necessary to protect oneself from the use of deadly force. I don't know what Florida law says about that.

 

It just seems to me that Zimmerman was the aggressor here, in the sense that he started the whole thing -- he set the events in motion when he started following Trayvon in his car, and then followed him on foot -- at night, in the rain. His actions were intimidating.

 

I guess the rest of the facts need to come out, though -- to know for sure what happened immediately prior to the gunshot.

 

 

 

 

 

[ma23peas]

 

I guess the rest of the facts need to come out, though -- to know for sure what happened immediately prior to the gunshot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bingo!!! That is all I would like to happen.

[KnitWit]

amsunshine, I agree that those things are what are troubling me as well.

[Mrs Mungo]

The biggest question here is if you were followed, would you attack your follower? Not unless they attacked first.

 

This is part of my point.

 

We don't know who made the first contact. But we do know some things. Martin was not doing anything illegal when Zimmerman started pursuing him and called police. Zimmerman had not witnessed an illegal act. Zimmerman was in no danger. Martin was no threat to Zimmerman.

 

Zimmerman became a perceived threat to Martin when he started following him. Wouldn't you get nervous if some 250 lb guy with a gun started chasing you through your neighborhood? Zimmerman, therefore, was the aggressor. Martin was the one who had reason to be fearful. Under Florida law, there is a higher burden of proof for Zimmerman to use deadly force in that case *and the concealed carry class tells you that* (as I linked, earlier).

 

As stated before you have a young man who has been in trouble in the past, whose tweets are beyond vulgar, and whose twitter name is referred to as black on white aggression...Zimmerman just picked the wrong person to follow.

Zimmerman didn't know any of that at the time, so it is irrelevant. Zimmerman is the one with the police record for assault. And Zimmerman should not have been following anyone, that is my point. He becomes the one initiating aggression.

 

The witnesses state it was Zimmerman being attacked not the other way around

As far as I know, there are no witnesses who saw the beginning of the confrontation. They saw two men already on the ground.

 

I just hate reading comments from people who do not wait for the truth to get out but just jump to conclusions.

I'm not jumping to conclusions. I'm saying there are alternatives to what Zimmerman says happened, and everyone should wait until more evidence is available.

 

It is a tragedy, but have any of us ever made a poor decision? I think Zimmerman AND Trayvon both made poor decisions and there was a bad result...

We do not know what decisions Martin made other than the decision to walk to the corner store in his dad's neighborhood.

 

eta: Once again, I will point out that *I* believe that Zimmerman will get off. Many other killers have gotten off in Florida in much sketchier circumstances under SYG. But, I'm glad it is finally in a case where people can see that SYG is a bad, bad idea. If citizens believe that they *always* have the right to use deadly force, then why avoid confrontations at all? A former Miami police chief says the same thing in this article. Police officers are the ones trained to pursue peole, to spot criminals, to calm down aggressive people. Private citizens should not be doing that job and this case is exactly the reason why.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Mrs Mungo