Trayvon Martin...is anyone following??

[KnitWit]

I agree with your thoughts Mrs. Mungo.

 

Also, I put little weight in eyewitness accounts of things like this. We have seen a couple of documentary reports where people were SO SURE they saw something and it was revealed they were completely wrong. I think on one of the reports, a woman was SO CERTAIN she could identify someone and gave a detailed description...and then it was discovered that she couldn't even see that far!!

[ChocolateReignRemix]

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).

 

Was Zimmerman engaged in an unlawful act? No. Following someone does not make him the aggressor.

Zimmerman's defense is, and has been, that he used deadly force when under attack by Martin. A witness backs up his version of events immediately before the shooting.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and those among you leading the witch hunt, to prove that he did something that negates his claim of self defense.

 

You continually argue/imply that the simple act of following Martin would negate his self defense claim, but that simply is not the case. Engaging in a legal action in public cannot be used to deny someone the right to defend themselves when the situation changes.

 

Based on his version of events, if true, Zimmerman doesn't even need the SYG law to defend himself.

 

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

 

Well, what they saw was Martin on top of Zimmerman, not just two people on the ground.

Edited March 28, 2012 by ChocolateReignRemix

[Joker]

I don't get why some continually point out Trayvon's problems and suspensions at school, which required zero police intervention, but do not address that Zimmerman was the one actually arrested previously for assault. Only one has a documented history of violence.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I agree with your thoughts Mrs. Mungo.

 

Also, I put little weight in eyewitness accounts of things like this. We have seen a couple of documentary reports where people were SO SURE they saw something and it was revealed they were completely wrong. I think on one of the reports, a woman was SO CERTAIN she could identify someone and gave a detailed description...and then it was discovered that she couldn't even see that far!!

 

Except the eyewitness account also backs up Zimmerman's claim that he was on the ground being assaulted by Martin. It also fits with the physical evidence.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I don't get why some continually point out Trayvon's problems and suspensions at school, which required zero police intervention, but do not address that Zimmerman was the one actually arrested previously for assault. Only one has a documented history of violence.

 

 

Yes, Zimmerman's arrest was so serious that charges were dropped.

[amsunshine]

Was Zimmerman engaged in an unlawful act? No. Following someone does not make him the aggressor.

Zimmerman's defense is, and has been, that he used deadly force when under attack by Martin. A witness backs up his version of events immediately before the shooting.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and those among you leading the witch hunt, to prove that he did something that negates his claim of self defense.

 

You continually argue/imply that the simple act of following Martin would negate his self defense claim, but that simply is not the case. Engaging in a legal action in public cannot be used to deny someone the right to defend themselves when the situation changes.

 

Based on his version of events, if true, Zimmerman doesn't even need the SYG law to defend himself.

 

 

 

Well, what they saw was Martin on top of Zimmerman, not just two people on the ground.

 

Actually, it would be a question of fact for a jury to decide whether Zimmerman's actions in following Martin made him the aggressor in this situation. As a juror, you might decide it didn't, but other jurors, and other reasonable minds, might disagree.

[Mrs Mungo]

CR, we could go back and forth all day with IF this or that version of the story is true. We don't know which version of the story is true. And honestly, at this point? It is beside the point, imo.

 

Will Zimmerman get off? Yes. Is he culpable for his actions from a moral standpoint, if not a legal one? Yes, I think he is. But, the bigger issue is the SYG law.

 

From the article by the former Miami police chief:

The second part of the law — “stand your ground†— is the most problematic. Until 2005, in all 50 states, the law on the use of force for civilians was pretty simple. If you found yourself in a situation where you felt threatened but could safely retreat, you had the duty to do so. (A police officer does not have the duty to retreat; that is the distinction between a sworn police officer and the average citizen regarding use of force.)

 

 

Police officers are trained to de-escalate highly charged encounters with aggressive people, using deadly force as a last resort. Citizens, on the other hand, may act from emotion and perceived threats. But “stand your ground†gives citizens the right to use force in public if they feel threatened. As the law emphatically states, a citizen has “no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.â€

 

 

 

During one debate, one of the law’s proponents suggested that if a citizen felt threatened in a public space, he should not have to retreat and should be able to meet force with force. I pointed out that citizens feel threatened all the time, whether it’s from the approach of an aggressive panhandler or squeegee pest or even just walking down a poorly lighted street at night. In tightly congested urban areas, public encounters can be threatening; a look, a physical bump, a leer, someone you think may be following you. This is part of urban life. You learn to navigate threatening settings without resorting to force. Retreating is always the best option.

 

 

 

As Florida police chiefs predicted in 2005, the law has been used to justify killings ranging from drug dealers’ turf battles to road rage incidents. Homicides categorized as justifiable have nearly tripled since the law went into effect.

 

 

Regardless of who you think dealt the first blow, does *anyone* think this case had a positive outcome? Does anyone think the SYG law is partially to blame for the outcome of this case for the reasons that I outlined above?

[Joker]

Yes, Zimmerman's arrest was so serious that charges were dropped.

 

Yes, and I wonder how he had them all dropped. He was arrested on assault/abuse charges more than once, and his dad is a retired judge.

[Mrs Mungo]

Except the eyewitness account also backs up Zimmerman's claim that he was on the ground being assaulted by Martin. It also fits with the physical evidence.

 

If Zimmerman is determined to be the initial aggressor, then the burden of proof shifts to Zimmerman to prove his life was in imminent danger. I linked the Florida law that states this. I linked the concealed carry class and neighborhood watch documents that would have warned Zimmerman that this was the case. Zimmerman's dad is a judge. He has extremely good reasons to lie about who initiated contact. So, we cannot simply take his word for it. A witness watching you losing the fight doesn't mean that you didn't start it. A witness seeing you getting punched, doesn't mean your life is in imminent danger.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

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).

 

Let's read the link you posted.

 

"776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

 

 

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force."

 

Pay attention to the bolded.

Let us assume for a minute that following someone is considered an "aggressive act" as you claim (it isn't, but we shall pretend), and that provoked Martin to assault Zimmerman.

Even if that is true, (a) and (b) both provide reasonable defenses for Zimmerman. If Martin had Zimmerman pinned to the ground and was beating him, which is what a witness saw, then Zimmerman could claim (a) as a defense, as he had no means of escape and had a reasonable belief of great bodily harm.

If Zimmerman did try to return to his vehicle when assaulted, (b) would also be a factor, as even if his following Martin DID provoke Martin, Zimmerman's good faith effort (returning to his vehicle) to cease the altercation would then allow him to claim self defense when attacked by Martin.

 

You keep getting fixated on the belief that simply following Martin somehow makes Zimmerman the aggressor throughout the encounter, which is simply not true, as evidenced by your own link.

 

 

Edited March 28, 2012 by ChocolateReignRemix

[ChocolateReignRemix]

If Zimmerman is determined to be the initial aggressor, then the burden of proof shifts to Zimmerman to prove his life was in imminent danger. I linked the Florida law that states this. I linked the concealed carry class and neighborhood watch documents that would have warned Zimmerman that this was the case. Zimmerman's dad is a judge. He has extremely good reasons to lie about who initiated contact. So, we cannot simply take his word for it. A witness watching you losing the fight doesn't mean that you didn't start it. A witness seeing you getting punched, doesn't mean your life is in imminent danger.

 

I believe you are missing some key words when you are reading that statute. Being pinned to the ground and being beaten would meet the criteria for "great bodily harm".

[Mrs Mungo]

Let's read the link you posted.

 

"776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

 

 

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force."

 

Pay attention to the bolded.

Let us assume for a minute that following someone is considered an "aggressive act" as you claim (it isn't, but we shall pretend), and that provoked Martin to assault Zimmerman.

 

Or Zimmerman is LYING about who initiated contact. Maybe he is lying about pushing or hitting Martin? Gee, wonder why he might do that? Because he is familiar with this very law? Through the very sources that I linked? Maybe he doesn't want to go to jail?

 

Even if that is true, Zimmerman (a) and (b) both provide reasonable defenses for Zimmerman. If Martin had Zimmerman pinned to the ground and was beating him, which is what a witness saw, then Zimmerman could claim (a) as a defense, as he had no means of escape and had a reasonable belief of great bodily harm.

Have I said that I think Zimmerman will be convicted? No, I have not. I have claimed the opposite in pretty much EVERY post that I have made. So, why are you arguing as if I believe Zimmerman will be convicted? I don't.

 

If Zimmerman did try to return to his vehicle when assaulted, (b) would also be a factor, as even if his following Martin DID provoke Martin, Zimmerman's good faith effort (returning to his vehicle) to cease the altercation would then allow him to claim self defense when attacked by Martin.

More IFs. That is not proof.

 

You keep getting fixated on the belief that simply following Martin somehow makes Zimmerman the aggressor throughout the encounter, which is simply not true, as evidenced by your own link.

You are completely and totally ignoring my actual assertion. If you want to discuss what I'm actually asserting, then we'll get back to it.

 

My assertion is this:

 

Zimmerman called police and followed Martin for no reason. If he had not believed that he would have immunity for shooting an unarmed teenager, would he have provoked that conflict? Probably not. Therefore, this case is only one of many examples of why SYG is a bad law.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Mrs Mungo

[KnitWit]

CR, you obviously have never witnessed a "good ol' boy network" in action. I don't know that there is one in this situation, but the fact that Zimmerman's charges were dropped prove NOTHING to me.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Yes, and I wonder how he had them all dropped. He was arrested on assault/abuse charges more than once, and his dad is a retired judge.

 

Hhhhmmmm...nice allegation. Not really founded in fact.

 

"Zimmerman was talking with his friend, became profane and pushed an agent who tried to escort him away, the report said. Authorities said he was arrested after a short struggle.Charged with resisting arrest without violence, he avoided conviction by entering a pretrial-diversion program, something common for first-time offenders.

A month later, court records show, a woman filed a petition for an injunction against Zimmerman, citing domestic violence. It's unclear what led to the petition, but Zimmerman responded by filing a petition of his own the following day.

Records show injunctions were later issued in both cases. Reached by email, the woman would not comment on her past with Zimmerman or his current situation."

 

 

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-20/news/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-20120320_1_robert-zimmerman-domestic-violence-online-petition

 

 

So his lengthy criminal history is pushing a cop when a friend was being arrested at a bar. Note the charge was "resisting arrest without violence", which isn't exactly the smoking gun indicating a violent criminal past. Nice jab about his father the judge. Did you notice the part about most first time offenders entering the pretrial diversion program?

He and a girlfriend both filed injunctions against each other, and all of this occurred what, 7 years ago?

Not exactly the lengthy history of violence you imply. Nice try though. Dig a little deeper and you may find where he gave someone a wedgie in 7th grade as well.

[ma23peas]

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?

This is what I dislike, when people start putting their spin on facts. Nowhere does it say this man was 'chasing' him...following and chasing are two different things. I do not suspect every man out there has a gun on him unless he shouts it...so again...your comments are irresponsibly feeding the frenzy.

 

Zimmerman, therefore, was the aggressor.

No, your perception, not based on facts. I see it as a man who was in charge of the neighborhood watch, had been burglarized, knows these criminals get away with it (our criminal has yet to serve a sentence for stealing from over 20 families in 12 months...and those are only the ones that he was caught burglarizing) He was hypersensitive and doing his role as far as reporting suspicious characters. If it had been a nice old grandma (white or black) walking her dog, no he would not have followed...but a youth with a hoodie pulled over walking erratically (could have been under the influence of marijuana..wonder if they'll do a tox screen) would raise suspicion.

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).

 

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.

Trayvon is the one with a record of three suspensions, horrifically graphic tweets that denegrate women and promote violence, his twitter name reflects black on white aggression, and his parents did not mention he was missing for 3 days? I am sorry, if my child went to get skittles and did not return for 2 hours I would be calling the police. I am not siding one way or the other, I am just tired of people taking a side and not addressing all the facts only the ones that support their position. Zimmerman also has a background, so does Trayvon.

 

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

They saw Zimmerman on the bottom crying for help, which Zimmerman also stated he did and no one came. By the way, one of the witnesses was a black man...this is not a race case, as the special interests groups are trying to promote. The reports were leaked, Trayvon was on the phone with a girlfriend who heard the conversation and her account matches Zimmerman's.

 

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.

I don't hink this is what you are saying, because you are drawing conclusions by claiming Zimmerman is the aggressor...I am just trying to point out the many facets of this story that contradict your conclusions.

 

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.

You are not drawing conclusions but you refer to him as a killer? To me, killing is intentional homicide, not self-defense. And, I believe he should get off if the proof shows that he was attacked by Trayvon...blood on his nose and back of his head seems to indicate that...I also believe he should be brought to trial if his actions were deemed threatening, following someone is not threatening...chasing someone is...which you seem to put in there although there are no facts to support that.

 

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.

Private citizens have to protect themselves, we all do not have a private security guard on our tail.

[Joker]

Hhhhmmmm...nice allegation. Not really founded in fact.

 

"Zimmerman was talking with his friend, became profane and pushed an agent who tried to escort him away, the report said. Authorities said he was arrested after a short struggle.Charged with resisting arrest without violence, he avoided conviction by entering a pretrial-diversion program, something common for first-time offenders.

A month later, court records show, a woman filed a petition for an injunction against Zimmerman, citing domestic violence. It's unclear what led to the petition, but Zimmerman responded by filing a petition of his own the following day.

Records show injunctions were later issued in both cases. Reached by email, the woman would not comment on her past with Zimmerman or his current situation."

 

 

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-20/news/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-20120320_1_robert-zimmerman-domestic-violence-online-petition

 

 

So his lengthy criminal history is pushing a cop when a friend was being arrested at a bar. Note the charge was "resisting arrest without violence", which isn't exactly the smoking gun indicating a violent criminal past. Nice jab about his father the judge. Did you notice the part about most first time offenders entering the pretrial diversion program?

He and a girlfriend both filed injunctions against each other, and all of this occurred what, 7 years ago?

Not exactly the lengthy history of violence you imply. Nice try though. Dig a little deeper and you may find where he gave someone a wedgie in 7th grade as well.

 

What about the felony one? In '05 a resisting arrest with violence. That was just the first one that popped up on google, but if you search there are several places that are now listing the same thing. So, he's had a domestic abuse charge filed, a resisting w/o violence, and a resisting w/violence.

 

ETA: Looks like we're talking about the same incident. The charge was initially resisting with violence, then reduced to w/o violence, then dropped.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Horton

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

Or Zimmerman is LYING about who initiated contact. Maybe he is lying about pushing or hitting Martin? Gee, wonder why he might do that? Because he is familiar with this very law? Through the very sources that I linked? Maybe he doesn't want to go to jail?

 

Read the statute. Even if he initially pushed Martin (any evidence he did?), there are still ways he can legitimately claim self defense.

 

Have I said that I think Zimmerman will be convicted? No, I have not. I have claimed the opposite in pretty much EVERY post that I have made. So, why are you arguing as if I believe Zimmerman will be convicted? I don't.

 

I am arguing against your position that he committed a crime.

 

More IFs. That is not proof.

 

Now you are just being obtuse. I capitalized if for a reason, explaining how the statute provides cover for Zimmerman IF his version of events proves to be true/have merit.

 

You are completely and totally ignoring my actual assertion. If you want to discuss what I'm actually asserting, then we'll get back to it.

 

My assertion is this:

 

Zimmerman called police and followed Martin for no reason. If he had not believed that he would have immunity for shooting an unarmed teenager, would he have provoked that conflict? Probably not. Therefore, this case is only one of many examples of why SYG is a bad law.

 

1.) Zimmerman believed he had reason to call the police on Martin.

2.) Now you are hypothesizing that Zimmerman had this whole scenario planned out in his head. And you harp at ME for claiming facts that have not been proven? Good lord. You have built this into some Law & Order/CSI episode.

What is more likely? Zimmerman was a devious killer who stalked Martin with the hope of creating a confrontation and claim self defense (with the added goodies of calling the police first and making sure he was on the ground being beaten at some point), or that a situation got out of hand, and poor decisions were made by both parties?

3.) Even in a duty to retreat state, you can defend yourself if pinned to the ground being beaten.

[Jennifer3141]

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.

 

We are coming at this from two disparate viewpoints that I don't think we'll ever agree. This is why juries are a GROUP of people I suppose.

 

I own NOTHING that I would ever want my husband to risk his life to chase out of our home. I have a collection of Waterford from my parents that is worth quite a bit. I have a sterling silver vanity set that's over 100 years old now and worth about $35,000 but I would gladly hand over any of that to anyone instead of allowing my spouse or my kids to chase a criminal across a field. I love my family much more than my stuff and %$#!%# my personal property rights.

 

Like I said, protect your home from entry all you want and I'd send you flowers if you did have to kill someone. You enter my home in the dead of the night or you break down my door, you're obviously not making an Avon call.

 

But pursuing out of the home for crap? Nope. Big deal. I get my crap back but my spouse is dead by the criminal's hand or by the other vigilantes running around out there? Woohoo? I don't want a martyr for a spouse. I want the real person.

 

Maybe it's because I don't believe in a happily ever after heaven with a sky daddy granting my dead spouse all his wishes?

 

Run off with my stuff. If you got out of my home without me blowing your head off or my dogs biting your butt off, you're pretty dang lucky. I'm not pushing my luck by chasing you.

 

And I'm not willing to become a vigilante and take a human life over crap. I'll get more crap. I'm drowing in crap at times. I have insurance to cover the cost of my crap. And credit cards to buy more crap.

 

Steal my carrots though... :tongue_smilie:

[Mrs Mungo]

This is what I dislike, when people start putting their spin on facts. Nowhere does it say this man was 'chasing' him...following and chasing are two different things. I do not suspect every man out there has a gun on him unless he shouts it...so again...your comments are irresponsibly feeding the frenzy.

 

Have you listened to the 911 tape? He sounds like he was running.

 

No, your perception, not based on facts. I see it as a man who was in charge of the neighborhood watch, had been burglarized, knows these criminals get away with it (our criminal has yet to serve a sentence for stealing from over 20 families in 12 months...and those are only the ones that he was caught burglarizing) He was hypersensitive and doing his role as far as reporting suspicious characters. If it had been a nice old grandma (white or black) walking her dog, no he would not have followed...but a youth with a hoodie pulled over walking erratically (could have been under the influence of marijuana..wonder if they'll do a tox screen) would raise suspicion.

 

Being a young, black male is not a crime. This is exactly what I'm saying. This is why it should be left to police to pursue people, NOT private citizens. Zimmerman *put himself* in that situation *without reason*.

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).

 

 

The reports were leaked, Trayvon was on the phone with a girlfriend who heard the conversation and her account matches Zimmerman's.

 

No, it doesn't. There are differences. Those differences could be the indicators of who the aggressor was.

 

I don't hink this is what you are saying, because you are drawing conclusions by claiming Zimmerman is the aggressor...I am just trying to point out the many facets of this story that contradict your conclusions.

 

What I am saying is this: Zimmerman never should have been in that situation.

 

You are not drawing conclusions but you refer to him as a killer? To me, killing is intentional homicide, not self-defense.

 

I believe he put himself in that situation. He never should have confronted Martin. He never should have been following him. In my opinion, that makes him morally culpable, if not legally culpable under Florida's current law.

Private citizens have to protect themselves, we all do not have a private security guard on our tail.

 

Zimmerman was NOT protecting himself by following an unarmed teenager who was doing nothing but walking through the neighborhood, talking on his cell phone. That is my point. Private individuals should not be putting themselves in that situation.

[amsunshine]

Maybe it's because I don't believe in a happily ever after heaven with a sky daddy granting my dead spouse all his wishes?

 

Run off with my stuff. If you got out of my home without me blowing your head off or my dogs biting your butt off, you're pretty dang lucky. I'm not pushing my luck by chasing you.

 

And I'm not willing to become a vigilante and take a human life over crap. I'll get more crap. I'm drowing in crap at times. I have insurance to cover the cost of my crap. And credit cards to buy more crap.

 

Steal my carrots though... :tongue_smilie:

 

:lol::lol::lol:

[Jennifer3141]

So his lengthy criminal history is pushing a cop when a friend was being arrested at a bar. Note the charge was "resisting arrest without violence", which isn't exactly the smoking gun indicating a violent criminal past. Nice jab about his father the judge. Did you notice the part about most first time offenders entering the pretrial diversion program?

He and a girlfriend both filed injunctions against each other, and all of this occurred what, 7 years ago?

Not exactly the lengthy history of violence you imply. Nice try though. Dig a little deeper and you may find where he gave someone a wedgie in 7th grade as well.

 

 

Or maybe he has a pot conviction back there too. Because that would clearly PROVE he's the bad one. Oh, wait a second... :glare:

 

I still maintain that if I had a choice between getting in trouble for pot and for assaulting a cop, I'd much rather have a joint. That's a whole lot less "thugish" to me.

[Mrs Mungo]

I am arguing against your position that he committed a crime.

 

That is why we aren't following one another. I'm not claiming he committed a crime under the current Florida law. I'm claiming he committed acts that are morally wrong and *should* be illegal.

 

1.) Zimmerman believed he had reason to call the police on Martin.

 

Yes, he was a young black male. Zimmerman had called police on other young black males seven times in the six months leading up to this incident.

 

2.) Now you are hypothesizing that Zimmerman had this whole scenario planned out in his head. And you harp at ME for claiming facts that have not been proven? Good lord. You have built this into some Law & Order/CSI episode.

What is more likely? Zimmerman was a devious killer who stalked Martin with the hope of creating a confrontation and claim self defense (with the added goodies of calling the police first and making sure he was on the ground being beaten at some point), or that a situation got out of hand, and poor decisions were made by both parties?

 

That is not what I said. Now who is being obtuse? What I said is this: *knowing* that they will have immunity if a situation goes bad is leading people to confront when they should be retreating.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Or maybe he has a pot conviction back there too. Because that would clearly PROVE he's the bad one. Oh, wait a second... :glare:

 

I still maintain that if I had a choice between getting in trouble for pot and for assualting a cop, I'd much rather have a joint. That's a whole lot less "thugish" to me.

 

 

Frankly, none of the background stuff really matters. I will say that when the Martin camp started off with the squeaky clean image and 3-4 year old pictures to frame the discussion, they opened the door for all of the dirt to come out.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

That is why we aren't following one another. I'm not claiming he committed a crime under the current Florida law. I'm claiming he committed acts that are morally wrong and *should* be illegal.

 

Following someone is morally wrong?

I am also saying that not only could he reasonable claim self defense in Florida, but in most other states as well.

 

 

Yes, he was a young black male. Zimmerman had called police on other young black males seven times in the six months leading up to this incident.

 

Zimmerman reported a person acting suspiciously in his eyes.

 

 

That is not what I said. Now who is being obtuse? What I said is this: *knowing* that they will have immunity if a situation goes bad is leading people to confront when they should be retreating.

 

You are still pretending to be in Zimmerman's mind, and claiming that he acted a certain way because of the SYG law. You do not know that, and cannot present evidence supporting your position.

And again, we don't KNOW who created the confrontation, yet you continually claim it was Zimmerman. We do KNOW what Zimmerman claims, and we do KNOW what a witness saw, and we do KNOW the physical evidence supported what the witness saw.

*IF* Zimmerman was retreating as he claims, then you have no ground to stand on with your arguments.

[Jennifer3141]

Frankly, none of the background stuff really matters. I will say that when the Martin camp started off with the squeaky clean image and 3-4 year old pictures to frame the discussion, they opened the door for all of the dirt to come out.

 

Huh. It's funny. Your side came out with pictures showing how bad Trayvon was by showing him flashing gang signs and wearing baggy pants before they were forced to retract them because that was the WRONG Trayvon Martin. Face wrong. Skin color wrong. Wrong person ENTIRELY.

 

But a family sharing what just might have been their favorite photos of their dead child? That's just tacky!:glare:

Edited March 28, 2012 by Jennifer3141

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Huh. It's funny. Your side came out with pictures showing how bad Trayvon was by showing him flashing gang signs and wearing baggy pants before they were forced to retract them because that was the WRONG Trayvon Martin. Face wrong. Skin color wrong. Wrong person ENTIRELY.

 

But a family sharing what just might have been their favorite photos of their dead child? That's just tacky!:glare:

 

 

My side? Pfffftttt.

 

Using the old photos was a calculated effort to make Martin appear younger and more likely a victim. Also claiming he was squeaky clean wasn't the smartest move for someone with multiple lengthy suspensions from school.

[Jennifer3141]

My side? Pfffftttt.

 

Using the old photos was a calculated effort to make Martin appear younger and more likely a victim. Also claiming he was squeaky clean wasn't the smartest move for someone with multiple lengthy suspensions from school.

 

 

Multiple suspensions from school... which is again VERY different from having an actual criminal record of course.

 

I can just about guarantee that if I personally entered the public school system today that I would have "multiple suspensions" too. That.is.why.I.HOMESCHOOL.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Multiple suspensions from school... which is again VERY different from having an actual criminal record of course.

 

Are missing the point of what I said or simply ignoring it.

 

I can just about guarantee that if I personally entered the public school system today that I would have "multiple suspensions" too. That.is.why.I.HOMESCHOOL.

 

Okay. Good for you. I guess.

[Mrs Mungo]

Following someone is morally wrong?

I am also saying that not only could he reasonable claim self defense in Florida, but in most other states as well.

 

North Carolina has a law similar to Florida's. In this article a NC law professor, a DA and a lawmaker all think what happened in the Martin case should not be considered self-defense. The DA comments at the end that Zimmerman probably would have been arrested for second degree murder in NC *because he pursued Martin*. There is debate in NC whether the law should be re-written so that it is more clear [eta: *because people think it is wrong* to pursue someone because of their age and skin color, provoke a confrontation, shoot them and claim self-defense].

 

Zimmerman reported a person acting suspiciously in his eyes.

As he reported a boy he estimated to be 7 years old a few months ago.

 

You are still pretending to be in Zimmerman's mind, and claiming that he acted a certain way because of the SYG law. You do not know that, and cannot present evidence supporting your position.

And again, we don't KNOW who created the confrontation, yet you continually claim it was Zimmerman. We do KNOW what Zimmerman claims, and we do KNOW what a witness saw, and we do KNOW the physical evidence supported what the witness saw.

I'm talking about *results*, as described by the former police chief in the article I linked. Edited March 28, 2012 by Mrs Mungo

[Jennifer3141]

Are missing the point of what I said or simply ignoring it.

 

Okay. Good for you. I guess.

 

I don't understand the sentence fragment. What?

 

And apparently, you haven't been around here enough to learn the problems many of the kids (even HERE) have had in a public school setting. Do you not know much about homeschooling yet?

[Jennifer3141]

 

As he reported a boy he estimated to be 7 years old a few months ago.

.

 

Hey, I have one of those and he IS suspicious as all get out. He's always plotting something. :001_huh:

[ChocolateReignRemix]

North Carolina has a law similar to Florida's. In this article a NC law professor, a DA and a lawmaker all think what happened in the Martin case should not be considered self-defense. The DA comments at the end that he probably would be arrested for second degree murder in NC *because he pursued Martin*. There is debate in NC whether the law should be re-written so that it is more clear.

 

I am taking those statements, for now, with a grain of salt. We don't know how informed the DA was in regards to the full story of what Zimmerman claims happened that night. Also, who really wants to put themselves out on front street publically defending Zimmerman?

 

Caught this at the end of the article.

"It is dangerous to comment on whether a person should or should not be charged with a crime based on reports of evidence without having access to the investigative file," Shaffer wrote. "However, if it is true that the volunteer who is accused of shooting Trayvon Martin was advised not to pursue Mr. Martin, and did so anyway, had no reason to believe Mr. Martin was a threat to him at the time he pursued him and placed himself in a situation where he confronted Mr. Martin, and Martin had no weapon on his person, I see absolutely no reason that Mr. Martin would not have been charged with at least second degree murder in North Carolina."

 

The scenario he describes is NOT what Zimmerman claims happened, as he left out the part about being pinned to the ground while attacked.

Edited March 28, 2012 by ChocolateReignRemix

[LucyStoner]

Yes, Zimmerman's arrest was so serious that charges were dropped.

 

This is patently untrue. The charges were not "dropped" as they would be for say, lack of evidence. He was young and entered pre-trial diversion. Diversion programs are designed to provide an alternative to the costs of jail and trial for the state and an alternative to a conviction for a first time offender. When you agree to diversion you acknowledge your guilt and are basically given another chance. Diversion participants generally have to do one or more classes and/or community service to compete the program and avoid trial. So if you fail to do so, the charges don't go away, they come back like they might on a released offender for violating parole.

 

Further he had a restraining order against him for DV. While anyone can get an initial order, a judge has to find reasonable cause to uphold it and keep it in force after the respondent has been notified. To Zimmerman's credit it appears his partner also had one against he but engaging in DV is a serious consideration in someone's propensity for aggression and violence as far as I am concerned.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

This is patently untrue. The charges were not "dropped" as they would be for say, lack of evidence. He was young and entered pre-trial diversion. Diversion programs are designed to provide an alternative to the costs of jail and trial for the state and an alternative to a conviction for a first time offender. When you agree to diversion you acknowledge your guilt and are basically given another chance. Diversion participants generally have to do one or more classes and/or community service to compete the program and avoid trial. So if you fail to do so, the charges don't go away, they come back like they might on a released offender for violating parole.

 

It is 100% true. Had it been a serious violent offense, he would not have been eligible for pre-trial diversion.

 

Further he had a restraining order against him for DV. While anyone can get an initial order, a judge has to find reasonable cause to uphold it and keep it in force after the respondent has been notified. To Zimmerman's credit it appears his partner also had one against he but engaging in DV is a serious consideration in someone's propensity for aggression and violence as far as I am concerned.

 

The fact that it was mutual injunctions and we have no details on any of what occurred, combined with no additional charges of any sort in the past 7 years, lessens any case for arguing Zimmerman had a propensity towards violence.

[Jennifer3141]

Apparently, the police had enough doubts about Zimmerman that they wanted him arrested for homicide and/or negligent manslaughter...

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/28/trayvon-martin-case-polic_n_1384301.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Chp-desktop%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D147152

[amsunshine]

I am taking those statements, for now, with a grain of salt. We don't know how informed the DA was in regards to the full story of what Zimmerman claims happened that night. Also, who really wants to put themselves out on front street publically defending Zimmerman?

 

Caught this at the end of the article.

"It is dangerous to comment on whether a person should or should not be charged with a crime based on reports of evidence without having access to the investigative file," Shaffer wrote. "However, if it is true that the volunteer who is accused of shooting Trayvon Martin was advised not to pursue Mr. Martin, and did so anyway, had no reason to believe Mr. Martin was a threat to him at the time he pursued him and placed himself in a situation where he confronted Mr. Martin, and Martin had no weapon on his person, I see absolutely no reason that Mr. Martin would not have been charged with at least second degree murder in North Carolina."

 

The scenario he describes is NOT what Zimmerman claims happened, as he left out the part about being pinned to the ground while attacked.

 

He's saying that Zimmerman should have been charged with "at least" second degree murder. That means the jury could find him guilty of murder, or any other lesser included offense, such as manslaughter.

The fact that Zimmerman may or may not have had a partial or complete defense to the charges is not really relevant to the issue of whether charges should have been filed. That's an issue for the trial jury to decide, not for the prosecutor initially finding charges.

[LucyStoner]

It is 100% true. Had it been a serious violent offense, he would not have been eligible for pre-trial diversion.

 

 

Diversion does not mean "charges dropped".

 

Serious and violent are two very different things. Something can be violent without being considered especially serious- like one punch in a bar fight. First time offenders for minor to moderate assaults get into diversion programs with anger management classes, at least in the area I live, mainly to save money and spare people criminal histories. An adult (age 21 at the time) hitting a cop says something more than a youth (age 16) getting suspended from school for things like defacing a locker with WTF. Someone needing a restraining order against you says a lot more than school suspensions.

 

You say following someone is not illegal. Menacing and harassing people are in fact crimes. Following someone and approaching them while armed is a way to do both. Following someone in the dark, in an angry state (swearing to the 911 operators indicates agitation at the very least) sounds menacing to many people.

 

If throughout your life, you found yourself being followed, accused and approached for no good reason (an experience that resonates with so many young AA males) you would not think so cavalierly about this shooter taking it on himself to follow a teen in the dark.

Edited March 28, 2012 by kijipt

[Jenny in Florida]

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.

 

Not only is he the son of a retired judge, but he had made his desire to join the police force well known. He was taking classes at a local college toward that end.

 

The college withdrew him after this incident.

[Jenny in Florida]

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...

 

Certainly, but only one of them was armed, and only one of them is dead.

[Mrs Mungo]

I am taking those statements, for now, with a grain of salt. We don't know how informed the DA was in regards to the full story of what Zimmerman claims happened that night. Also, who really wants to put themselves out on front street publically defending Zimmerman?

 

Caught this at the end of the article.

"It is dangerous to comment on whether a person should or should not be charged with a crime based on reports of evidence without having access to the investigative file," Shaffer wrote. "However, if it is true that the volunteer who is accused of shooting Trayvon Martin was advised not to pursue Mr. Martin, and did so anyway, had no reason to believe Mr. Martin was a threat to him at the time he pursued him and placed himself in a situation where he confronted Mr. Martin, and Martin had no weapon on his person, I see absolutely no reason that Mr. Martin would not have been charged with at least second degree murder in North Carolina."

 

The scenario he describes is NOT what Zimmerman claims happened, as he left out the part about being pinned to the ground while attacked.

 

The differences between Zimmerman and Martin doing the confronting are small. The girlfriend on the phone says it was Zimmerman who confronted Martin. Zimmerman has high motivation to lie about his story.

 

Two version of the story, and that is what it comes down to in deciding who did the confronting.

 

"What are you stopping me for?" Martin asked Zimmerman, according to the girl.

"What are you doing around here?" Zimmerman asked in response.

The girl said she then got the impression that an altercation was taking place and that someone had pushed Martin, because the headset fell out of his ear, and the phone shut off.

 

 

versus

 

 

 

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.

 

He's saying that Zimmerman should have been charged with "at least" second degree murder. That means the jury could find him guilty of murder, or any other lesser included offense, such as manslaughter.

The fact that Zimmerman may or may not have had a partial or complete defense to the charges is not really relevant to the issue of whether charges should have been filed. That's an issue for the trial jury to decide, not for the prosecutor initially finding charges.

 

Right.

[Slartibartfast]

This is what I dislike, when people start putting their spin on facts. Nowhere does it say this man was 'chasing' him...following and chasing are two different things. I do not suspect every man out there has a gun on him unless he shouts it...so again...your comments are irresponsibly feeding the frenzy.

 

 

On the 911 tape he says Martin is running and you can hear on the tape sounds that indicate that Zimmerman is also running. Martin reported to his girlfriend, who he was speaking to on the phone at the time, that someone was following him.

[NASDAQ]

Of course it's tragic, unspeakably tragic for the families, but I'm not sure why it's earth-shaking stuff.

 

Young black men are far and away the most likely murder victims, and murder is usually intra-racial. Were I the mother to a black child, that would concern me much more than the off chance that a hispanic neighbourhood watch man might misjudge a situation and tragically over-react.

 

This business of offering bounties for the shooter and tweeting addresses purported to be his is pretty revolting.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The differences between Zimmerman and Martin doing the confronting are small. The girlfriend on the phone says it was Zimmerman who confronted Martin. Zimmerman has high motivation to lie about his story.

 

Two version of the story, and that is what it comes down to in deciding who did the confronting.

 

 

You do realize that other than the specific wording (either of which could be right/wrong/slightly inaccurate), the stories are not that different.

 

Zimmerman and the girlfriend both state that Martin spoke first.

None of us know the terrain and distances the location, but it is conceivable that both Zimmerman and the girlfriend are describing the same event. I think we all assumed that the distance between the two was possibly greater than it could have been in reality, because of Zimmerman stating he lost sight of Martin. For all we know, that could have been due to a corner/shadows/darkness. It is quite possible Zimmerman lost sight of Martin, but that Martin could see Zimmerman, and that they were closer than Zimmerman thought.

[ma23peas]

The differences between Zimmerman and Martin doing the confronting are small. The girlfriend on the phone says it was Zimmerman who confronted Martin. Zimmerman has high motivation to lie about his story.

 

Two version of the story, and that is what it comes down to in deciding who did the confronting.

 

 

 

 

versus

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right.

My point is you continually go back to only finding 'evidence' that supports your view, you make few if any comments on evidence that contradicts your conclusions. The girlfriend 'assumes' Martin was the one hit, it could easily have been how Zimmerman stated that Martin knocked him in the nose, if were 'hypothesizing' then if someone knocked me in the nose I would grab the person to try and defend myself, easily an earpiece would be knocked out in that scenario...

 

Why not answer why his parents took 3 days to claim him missing? Martin's propensity for violence and his outlook on black on white violence? His tweets say a lot about his motivations. Again, just wanting any conjecture to be fair and balanced not digging for only the proofs that defend one side or the other...that could go on all day (as witnessed by these pages) but the best option is to leave conjecture up to those with the evidence...not with those of us with bits and pieces.

[jennynd]

Not only is he the son of a retired judge, but he had made his desire to join the police force well known. He was taking classes at a local college toward that end.

 

The college withdrew him after this incident.

ahh.... I was wondering why he is "well protected" and obviously know what to say. also wondering about the "leak". It is also very fishy

[jennynd]

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

 

 

right.. from? and did police ever confirmed directly that those are from the night. apparently the guy is well connected

[ChocolateReignRemix]

ahh.... I was wondering why he is "well protected" and obviously know what to say. also wondering about the "leak". It is also very fishy

 

Or maybe he just told the truth?

[jennynd]

Or maybe he just told the truth?

u know beacuse?????

[Slartibartfast]

 

Why not answer why his parents took 3 days to claim him missing? Martin's propensity for violence and his outlook on black on white violence? His tweets say a lot about his motivations. Again, just wanting any conjecture to be fair and balanced not digging for only the proofs that defend one side or the other...that could go on all day (as witnessed by these pages) but the best option is to leave conjecture up to those with the evidence...not with those of us with bits and pieces.

 

They repeatedly called his cell phone that the police did not answer. The family filed a missing person report Feb 27th, which is the next day. Where are you getting 3 days?

[LucyStoner]

Martin's propensity for violence and his outlook on black on white violence?

 

What exactly are you basing this on?