Unarmed Florida Teen Shot

[ballen0351]

Exactly. When we're talking about a group who must follow procedure all the time, to see some so lax ... well, it makes one wonder what else they're lax at.

You assume there is a procedure they are not following. We have no procedure where I work about how we walk with a person in custody. So by not escorting them Im not breaking procedure. Our only SOP says then must be cuffed in the back unless they have some medical reason to put them up front. Put in a caged car on rear passenger side unless we transport 2 people. They must be searched prior to being placed into the car and when they are removed then the booking officer preforms an addition search and if its a drug related charge a strip search when they enter the cell block. We must flip up and inspect the back seat prior to putting anyone in the car and as soon as possible when they are removed. There is no SOP on how to walk them. We have training on the best ways to do it but thats it.

See? That right there. You make assumptions like this and it kind of ... well, it betrays that you just knee-jerk react. Why would I expect them to rough him up? I would expect them to lead him in by the arm and at least flank him on the outside. It's almost as if they're taking in one of their own.

theres a wall on his outside I dont ever get between a suspect and a wall its to easy for them to shove me into the wall and smack my head against it and knock me out. Also if he acts up I can pin him against a wall which I couldnt do as easy if there were an officer standing there. Your making to much out of nothing. how they walked him into the station really has no bearing on the case.

My DH's cousin works custody here in town and we've discussed how much leeway she gives to whom and ... she, like you, is much more careful than most others. She said it also depends on what they are brought in for.

The crime to me has nothing to do with how closely I watch them its how they are acting. you can be killed just as quickly by a shoplifter then a murderer. One of the worst fights Ive ever been in was over a parking ticket a meter maid wrote the guy started yelling at her she called for police assistance by the time it was over I was covered in blood had my uniform shirt ripped almost off and broke my had, his nose, orbital bone, we both got OC sprayed by the meter maid how was trying to help and he was tazed when back up arrived. Over a 25 dollar parking ticket. I hope she never lets her guard down just because its a petty crime.
Here is a story she should read about a shoplifter in Cal.
http://www.policeone.com/news/60658-calif-wal-mart-gun-battle-detailed

Decaf, friend. It's much easier to answer questions logically and calmly, mkay? I'm not your enemy here.

Never said you were my enemy but your comment wasnt logical or calm. Your "Im just sayin" made it sould like an attack on the police

**EDITED TO ADD**

And yes, I'm pretty sure the departments around here have a procedure for walking a suspect from a secure sally port into the building and into intake and from one point to the other until they are in the cell and the cell is secured.

Ive worked at 3 different departments and my wife has been at 2 and I dont know of any that spell out how to walk a prisioner. Even after my department was sued when the guy I had fell they decided not to add an SOP because there are too many variables to be that specific.

 

[punisher73]

Spike Lee issued an apology to the couple who owned the house he claimed Zimmerman lived at. The older couple had to leave their house due to threats and harrassment after Lee posted the wrong address.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...o-florida-couple-for-retweeting-their-address

No one will ever know what REALLY happened, just as in any other case. You have both sides of the story and then evidence to support the claims. Almost nothing is ever clear cut. I won't make a judgement until everything is done and made public, I just think that there are too many unknowns and the media is just releasing bits and not caring their accuracy to stir things up.

 

[Big Don]

Zimmerman, who is half white and half Hispanic

Mention that Obama is half white, and you're a racist...

 

[Steve]

Mention that Obama is half white, and you're a racist...

Are you a racist?

 

[Big Don]

Are you a racist?

see

 

[shesulsa]

Mention that Obama is half white, and you're a racist...

Only if you called him a half-coon.

 

[shesulsa]

No takers? When does it stop being self-defense and start becoming homicide?

I think we could turn this discussion into something much more productive and important to self-defense theory here.

This is a really compelling case - for the sake of discussion, can we agree to assume the following?

1. Adult self-appointed neighborhood patrol, out on a personal errand, sees an unfamiliar young person wearing a hoodie (in the rain and in the dark) walking in the neighborhood, looking around a lot, lending to probably suspicion.

2. Said adult pursues pedestrian.

3. Hooded pedestrian notices adult following him, verbally confronts him telling and continues to try to leave; as adult continues to follow and close in, pedestrian turns and as adult approaches begins to attack.

4. An altercation happens - at various times each party is superior in position to the other.

5. The adult attempts at one point to return to his vehicle (purpose unknown).

6. The fight escalates to the point where the pedestrian is bashing the adult's head on the ground.

7. The adult shoots the pedestrian, killing him.

I think there are many on the board who live in neighborhoods where home and car break-ins are common and see unfamiliar pedestrians a lot. By the time many of criminals who burglarize are often long gone before police arrive, leaving some to focus more on prevention by confronting strangers in their neighborhoods.

When does this kind of altercation stop being self-defense and become a fight? Who is defending themselves here?

Let's assume each of these people perceived themselves to be in a threatening situation; from the pedestrian's standpoint, some strange dude was pursuing him for some unknown reason, and when this person tried to attack him, he turned the tables on the man, trying to save his life. From the man's standpoint, this person might have been fleeing from already committing a crime or seeking an opportunistic situation and rather than risk loss or injury to another neighbor, he takes it upon himself - bravely - to confront this man. When he gets close enough to talk or pose a postural superiority to the suspect, he is attacked, so he responds trying to save his life.

What if BOTH of these men felt threatened and BOTH were trying to defend their lives? If this is the case, should fault lie with the survivor?

 

[ballen0351]

No takers? When does it stop being self-defense and start becoming homicide?

When they can prove it was homicide. Your innocent in this country and your not required to prove your innocent. The stste is required to prove your guilty. Thats not always as easy as it sounds. I know a guy right now we KNOW has comited at least 4 different murders but we dont have the evidence to prove it and none of the witnesses will testify. I can go to his house right now and have no doubt he killed the 4 for sure and we think its at least 6 but we cant prove it

 

[Steve]

I say we burn him.....


No. I say we hang him.....


No. Let's hang him... Then burn him....


Yeah!!,!,!!

 

[elder999]

Here's a redacted copy of the initial police report.

This is "interesting":

 

[billc]

Hmmmm...just maybe, George Zimmerman isn't the racist that people jumped to the conclusion that he was...

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/04/zimmerman-demanded-discipline-in-2010-race-related-beating-for-officers-who-investigated-martin-shooting/

In late 2010 and early 2011 George Zimmerman, the Hispanic Sanford, Fla., man who shot and killed 17-year-old black teen Trayvon Martin, publicly demanded discipline in a race-related beating case for at least two of the police officers who cleared him after the Feb. 26 altercation, according to records obtained by The Daily Caller.

In a letter to Seminole County NAACP president Turner Clayton, a member of the Zimmerman family wrote that George was one of “very few” in Sanford who publicly condemned the “beating of the black homeless man Sherman Ware on Dec. 4, 2010, by the son of a Sanford police officer,” who is white.
TheDC has confirmed the identity of the Zimmerman family member who wrote the letter but is withholding that person’s specific identity out of concern for the family’s safety.

​

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/04/z...o-investigated-martin-shooting/#ixzz1r54zhgX9
​

 

[Bill Mattocks]

NBC has admitted 'doctoring' the 911 tapes, which made it seem as if Zimmerman were racist instead of answering a direct question by the 911 dispatcher.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/nbc-...diting-george-zimmermans-911-call-apologizes/

This is how the program portrayed a segment of that conversation:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

And here is how it actually went down:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.

Bit of a difference there, eh? Yeah.

Bet we don't read any apologies or retractions from those who insist Zimmerman is racist. It will not fit their world-view, so they will ignore this and not respond. Sad, really. Pathetic.

 

[billc]

This article, from Americanthinker.com, is one of the best summaries of where we, the uninformed public are now. It brings up some necessary questions...where was Zimmerman's truck in relation to where the fight took place, and other items not generally looked at in other accounts. The point that there were possibly 8 break ins in the community before Zimmerman called 911 on Martin, one of which involved a young mother locked in her bedroom as the intruder tried to get in, are a few things covered...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/zimmerman_and_ketman.html

At the very beginning of his 911 call, Zimmerman tells the operator that there have been a lot of break-ins recently. In fact, there were eight burglaries in the previous fifteen months. Where the intruders were identified, most were young black males, including two who invaded the home of a young mother and tried to break into the bedroom she had locked herself into with her infant son. This must have been a terrifying experience, but it was not of interest to the MSM. Zimmerman met with the woman afterward.

According to Zimmerman's later testimony, he had returned to his truck and was waiting for the police when he was surprised by Martin. The teen asked him if he had a problem. When Zimmerman said "no" and reached for his cell phone, Martin punched him in the face. Zimmerman fell to the ground; Martin jumped on top of him and began slamming his head against the sidewalk.

Zimmerman was not arrested for the simple reason that the physical evidence corroborated his testimony and "John's." According to the police, he had a bloody nose, a swollen lip, lacerations on the back of his head, and scuff-marks or grass stains on the back of his jersey. The police had no reason to believe that these were self-inflicted. If Zimmerman's statement is accurate, Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, the subject of so much vitriol, may not have been relevant; it applies to individuals who are standing, not lying on their back being beaten. In no state do you not have a right to defend yourself with lethal force if your head is being slammed into concrete.
A key piece of evidence not disclosed so far is where Zimmerman's truck was parked. If it was close to where police found Martin's body, this would support his version. Even more interesting when it's released will be the paramedics' report. ABC has featured a police surveillance video which, they initially claimed, shows no injuries to Zimmerman. Embarrassed by a high-definition version on Breitbart.com, the network enhanced the video, and it now shows "what appear to be a pair of gashes or welts on George Zimmerman's head."

Notice the reference to Breitbart.com, that is one of the reasons the left hates Andrew Breitbart so much, he and his happy warriors challenge their version of reality...by looking at what actually happens...

And on the 911 operator letting Zimmerman know that he didn't have to follow Martin...

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/02/911-call-shows-zimmerman-stopped-following-martin-after-dispatchers-request-corroborates-story/

I have no idea where this assertion of fact could possibly have come from, but it is absolutely universal. Even now, pundits on every channel maintain that Zimmerman disobeyed a police order (though it wasn’t even an order) and continued chasing Martin. Zimmerman’s story from the beginning to police and to the media has been that he stopped following when the dispatcher told him to. There have been no witness statements to the contrary. For that matter, there are no witnesses claiming to have seen what happened before the physical altercation took place. But what does the 911 tape tell us?

There’s another reason to believe that Zimmerman stopped following Martin: After he gives the dispatcher his personal address, at 3:35, he says, “Oh crap, I don’t want to give that all out. I don’t know where this kid is,” meaning he is worried Martin might hear where he lives. If Zimmerman doesn’t even know where Martin is, would it even be possible for him to still be following Martin at this point? Would it even be possible for him to have continued following Martin after hanging up the phone — a full two minutes after he first got out of his car and a minute and a half after he fully stops breathing heavily — unless Martin came back and revealed himself?

You know, we really need to wait to judge this until all the facts actually come out, without the media and certain groups pushing for a specific outcome...don't you think?

 

[shesulsa]

NBC has admitted 'doctoring' the 911 tapes, which made it seem as if Zimmerman were racist instead of answering a direct question by the 911 dispatcher.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/nbc-...diting-george-zimmermans-911-call-apologizes/



Bit of a difference there, eh? Yeah.

Bet we don't read any apologies or retractions from those who insist Zimmerman is racist. It will not fit their world-view, so they will ignore this and not respond. Sad, really. Pathetic.

Did they add the part where Zimmerman mutters, "F**king Coons?????"

Come on, people.

This guy is not an untrained idiot - he used to be a security officer. So was I and our training hammered into our heads that our job is to observe and report. Neighborhood watchpersons (in this area, at least) are TOLD TO NOT PURSUE a suspicious individual, rather gain a description if possible, call 911, observe and report.

There is no question in my mind that Zimmerman pursued Martin, *KNEW* that pursuing this young man was wrong and *KNEW* what he was doing when he did it anyway. So I ask you this: WHY????

We must ask ourselves and each other WHY did he pursue this young man when he ALREADY HAD DONE WHAT WAS EXPECTED AND WAS IN THE LIMITS OF WHAT HE SHOULD DO??

WHY???

What we don't know is what the crime statistics in that very neighborhood were for ... oh, let's give him 6 months ... prior to the incident. Now, I could understand if neighbors were being raped, robbed, beaten, harassed, intimidated and threatened on a regular basis or if the situation were severe, or if this young man fit the description of a suspect in a recent, local violent crime, or a family member was the victim of one.

"These guys always get away."

What guys? Pedestrian hoodlums who case the neighborhood for car & home burglaries? Young guys walking through the neighborhood after sundown? Or is it those "f**king coons?"

I cannot ignore that he 1. Knew what he was doing. 2. Knew he shouldn't be doing it and 3. Did it anyway. And called the kid a "coon" in the process.

I just don't see an enormous leap for race crime here.

 

[MJS]

I think we could turn this discussion into something much more productive and important to self-defense theory here.

This is a really compelling case - for the sake of discussion, can we agree to assume the following?

1. Adult self-appointed neighborhood patrol, out on a personal errand, sees an unfamiliar young person wearing a hoodie (in the rain and in the dark) walking in the neighborhood, looking around a lot, lending to probably suspicion.

2. Said adult pursues pedestrian.

3. Hooded pedestrian notices adult following him, verbally confronts him telling and continues to try to leave; as adult continues to follow and close in, pedestrian turns and as adult approaches begins to attack.

4. An altercation happens - at various times each party is superior in position to the other.

5. The adult attempts at one point to return to his vehicle (purpose unknown).

6. The fight escalates to the point where the pedestrian is bashing the adult's head on the ground.

7. The adult shoots the pedestrian, killing him.

I think there are many on the board who live in neighborhoods where home and car break-ins are common and see unfamiliar pedestrians a lot. By the time many of criminals who burglarize are often long gone before police arrive, leaving some to focus more on prevention by confronting strangers in their neighborhoods.

When does this kind of altercation stop being self-defense and become a fight? Who is defending themselves here?

Let's assume each of these people perceived themselves to be in a threatening situation; from the pedestrian's standpoint, some strange dude was pursuing him for some unknown reason, and when this person tried to attack him, he turned the tables on the man, trying to save his life. From the man's standpoint, this person might have been fleeing from already committing a crime or seeking an opportunistic situation and rather than risk loss or injury to another neighbor, he takes it upon himself - bravely - to confront this man. When he gets close enough to talk or pose a postural superiority to the suspect, he is attacked, so he responds trying to save his life.

What if BOTH of these men felt threatened and BOTH were trying to defend their lives? If this is the case, should fault lie with the survivor?

No takers? When does it stop being self-defense and start becoming homicide?

Sorry, missed this. I'd say it stops being SD, when you continue after the threat is no longer. ie: guy takes a swing at you, you block and hit back, guy goes down. Threat is over. Once he's down, you use his ribs for football practice and his head and a soccer ball. Thats a no no.

 

[MJS]

Did they add the part where Zimmerman mutters, "F**king Coons?????"

That may've been brushed under the carpet. Just sayin.

This guy is not an untrained idiot - he used to be a security officer. So was I and our training hammered into our heads that our job is to observe and report. Neighborhood watchpersons (in this area, at least) are TOLD TO NOT PURSUE a suspicious individual, rather gain a description if possible, call 911, observe and report.

Exactly!!! Sadly, there're people who're in these positions who think they're junior cops, firefighters, etc, when in reality they're not. They just have a hard time coming to grips with that fact.

There is no question in my mind that Zimmerman pursued Martin, *KNEW* that pursuing this young man was wrong and *KNEW* what he was doing when he did it anyway. So I ask you this: WHY????

Because he's a wanna-be? Because he wants to be a hero?

We must ask ourselves and each other WHY did he pursue this young man when he ALREADY HAD DONE WHAT WAS EXPECTED AND WAS IN THE LIMITS OF WHAT HE SHOULD DO??

WHY???

See above.

What we don't know is what the crime statistics in that very neighborhood were for ... oh, let's give him 6 months ... prior to the incident. Now, I could understand if neighbors were being raped, robbed, beaten, harassed, intimidated and threatened on a regular basis or if the situation were severe, or if this young man fit the description of a suspect in a recent, local violent crime, or a family member was the victim of one.

Good point.

"These guys always get away."

What guys? Pedestrian hoodlums who case the neighborhood for car & home burglaries? Young guys walking through the neighborhood after sundown? Or is it those "f**king coons?"

I'll take all of the above for $1000. Something that people seem to forget, and something that I deal with on a daily basis. People have no concept of time, and their incident is the most important one! A woman called to report something today. 20min exactly past the original time of call, she called back, asking where the cop was. While her call was important, to her, to me and to the cops, the other call, that came in right after hers, was a higher priority. So, moral of the story...some guy walking around, while suspicious, isn't a 'hot' call. When you have accidents, domestics, fights, etc, those will always take priority.

I cannot ignore that he 1. Knew what he was doing. 2. Knew he shouldn't be doing it and 3. Did it anyway. And called the kid a "coon" in the process.

I just don't see an enormous leap for race crime here.

Yup.

 

[Wo Fat]

Did they add the part where Zimmerman mutters, "F**king Coons?????"

Come on, people.

This guy is not an untrained idiot - he used to be a security officer. So was I and our training hammered into our heads that our job is to observe and report. Neighborhood watchpersons (in this area, at least) are TOLD TO NOT PURSUE a suspicious individual, rather gain a description if possible, call 911, observe and report.

There is no question in my mind that Zimmerman pursued Martin, *KNEW* that pursuing this young man was wrong and *KNEW* what he was doing when he did it anyway. So I ask you this: WHY????

We must ask ourselves and each other WHY did he pursue this young man when he ALREADY HAD DONE WHAT WAS EXPECTED AND WAS IN THE LIMITS OF WHAT HE SHOULD DO??

WHY???

What we don't know is what the crime statistics in that very neighborhood were for ... oh, let's give him 6 months ... prior to the incident. Now, I could understand if neighbors were being raped, robbed, beaten, harassed, intimidated and threatened on a regular basis or if the situation were severe, or if this young man fit the description of a suspect in a recent, local violent crime, or a family member was the victim of one.

"These guys always get away."

What guys? Pedestrian hoodlums who case the neighborhood for car & home burglaries? Young guys walking through the neighborhood after sundown? Or is it those "f**king coons?"

I cannot ignore that he 1. Knew what he was doing. 2. Knew he shouldn't be doing it and 3. Did it anyway. And called the kid a "coon" in the process.

I just don't see an enormous leap for race crime here.

At the risk of semantics, Zimmerman said f**cking coons -- plural. Moreover, it was the second time within that very call that he referenced a group of people i.e., "these a**holes, they always get away".

What most reasonable people have and will conclude is that Zimmerman's actions were wreckless. That Zimmerman made comments that were racially hostile in nature, might likely be evidence that he inflamed the situation that his poor judgment created.

For the life of me, I cannot understand some people's timidity in acknowledging and confronting racial bigotry when and where it exists. When our society came together to condemn terrorism after 9/11/01, it sent a message around the world that terror and terrorists have no safe haven here. No, 9/11 isn't the equivalent of anything. Not trying to suggest it. Rather, I'm saying that people can stand up and condemn some kind of "ism" for the good of society.

 

[billc]

It seems to me from what I have seen of his history calling 911 that he had established a pattern of calling, observing and reporting. In the earlier posts, steve listed some of the 911 calls he had made before and there was not a pattern of him actively trying to apprehend, hold or detain, anyone that he called on. He may very well have simply been following to observe and report the location of martin when the police arrived at the scene, and that seems to be shown on the 911 call. If he was going to confront martin, he could have done that when he first saw martin walking near his truck. He didn't get out then, and point his pistol, he let him walk by and then continued observing and reporting what he saw.

Also, that was where he lived. He had as much if not more of a right to be walking anywhere on the grounds of that gated community, and as long as he didn't pull the pistol, or try to touch martin, he hadn't done anything wrong. If he pointed the pistol first, which there doesn't seem to be any evidence of with two eye witnesses to the fight, or he touched, grabbed or hit martin first, then he crossed the line first and he would be in trouble. Otherwise, he could have walked behind martin all day long and he wouldn't have been breaking the law. then martin could have called the police about some guy following him.

As far as the racial slur, can you link to the actual point where he used it. I heard it was indistinct, and you may not be able to determine what he actually said. Also, if he did use it, you would have to weigh that against all the actual activity he did that goes against the accusation that he was a racist. There seems to be a lot of that stacking up. Also, even if he did use the term, that still doesn't mean he planned on killing martin, or wanted to.

The hate crimes silliness is just silly. If he killed martin intentionally, it wouldn't matter why he did it, only in regards to trying to find out who the killer was. Thought crimes accusations just muddy the situation up. Killing someone for their race, or because they have something you want still leaves the person dead. Prosecute the action, not the thought, it gets you to the same place and keeps you from doing silly things.

 

[crushing]

Did they add the part where Zimmerman mutters, "F**king Coons?????"

It seems most people think he said that, especially the people that have listened to the 'enhanced audio' from CNN or have only read or heard that he said that, but didn't actually listen to unaltered audio version. Many people think he said "F**king punks" or "F**king cold". I fall in to the group that heard the enhanced audio first and really can't "unhear" it.

 

[Wo Fat]

It seems most people think he said that, especially the people that have listened to the 'enhanced audio' from CNN or have only read or heard that he said that, but didn't actually listen to unaltered audio version. Many people think he said "F**king punks" or "F**king cold". I fall in to the group that heard the enhanced audio first and really can't "unhear" it.

And then there are people who heard "f**king clothes" or "f**king dabloons" or "f**king baboons" (no, probably don't wanna admit hearing that one)... maybe "f**king spittoons" or "f**K! Honeymoons" or even "muffin spoons".