Unarmed Florida Teen Shot

[Cryozombie]

You know watching the CNN clip above where they just repeated the same thing over and over... it really sounds to me like before the F-bomb, he says "it's". Could be because of the way they edited it, I haven't hear the whole recording. If he did say "it's" then Cold makes a hell of a lot more sense...

I'mma throw my two cents into the ring here...

1: Based on what we believe we know, I don't think Zimmerman is innocent. This is, again, MY OPINION based on what I BELIEVE we know. It is subject to change.

2: However... IF it's true that Trayvon had him down and was beating his head into the ground... I can't fault him for his action, because if that were so Trayvon went WELL beyond the realm of self defense, even if he started that way... I think most all of us would agree to that.

3: The notion that some people are putting forward that Zimmerman is a big guy and Trayvon is just a little one, so Zimmerman could not have been in any danger is, really, quite laughable. As martial artists how can we even pretend to foster the truth of that?

4: Concluding, as some have done that Zimmerman isn't racist because he isn't actually white is, frankly silly. Hispanics can hate Blacks, Blacks can hate Hispanics, etc... contrary to popular belief, you don't have to be a Hetero White Christian Male, to be a (Insert bias/bigotry here).

 

[yorkshirelad]

Greeting everyone! I know, I've been away for a while, but here I am with my view on the Trayvon case:
I have to say, I'm not a fan of Neighbourhood Watch. In many cases, it begins with the best intentions, but starts to get insidious when you're questioned about the dubious looking tatted guys who visit you on a regualr occurance.
Now, zimmerman was told, full well by the 911 dispatcher, not to follow Trayvon, period. Zimmerman took it upon himself to play cop, and followed Trayvon with a weapon in hand. Trayvon had a right to be there, was by himself, and, as he was moving away from Zimmerman, he posed no threat.
Now we get to the point of the story, where Trayvon was "seen" attacking Zimmerman and getting the upper hand. Now, before I go on, most of you know my view s on race in the US, I am by no mean a fan of Sharpton and his race baiting crew. That being said, if a black man in a black neighbourhood followed a white teen, with a pistol in hand, and confronted him. Then if the white teen fought with him, and got shot in the process, the black guy, even considering the "stand your ground" law would be in prison on a death penalty rap.
Trayvon saw a man with a weapon in hand, and decided to try to defend himself, period!

 

[yorkshirelad]

CCW holder who took home the 9mm he used to shoot a 17 year old boy.

It's guys like this who get laws changed, making it harder for decent people to obtain a CCW.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Greeting everyone! I know, I've been away for a while, but here I am with my view on the Trayvon case:
I have to say, I'm not a fan of Neighbourhood Watch. In many cases, it begins with the best intentions, but starts to get insidious when you're questioned about the dubious looking tatted guys who visit you on a regualr occurance.

And how does that deny anyone their rights? By all accounts, the neighborhood had suffered a number of recent break-ins. The appropriate response would be to *not* have a Neighborhood Watch program?

Now, zimmerman was told, full well by the 911 dispatcher, not to follow Trayvon, period.

A) No, he wasn't. The dispatcher asked if Zimmerman was following Martin, Zimmerman said he was, and the dispatcher said " OK, we don't need you to do that." That's not an order, that's a statement that the police do not require Zimmerman to follow Martin. He is not told not to do it, just that it isn't necessary.

B) The dispatcher cannot give orders to citizens.

Zimmerman took it upon himself to play cop, and followed Trayvon with a weapon in hand.

Zimmerman took it upon himself to follow Martin anyway. I do not know he was 'playing cop' and neither do you. I don't know he had his weapon in his had; the last I heard he said it was holstered until he drew it and shot Martin.

Trayvon had a right to be there, was by himself, and, as he was moving away from Zimmerman, he posed no threat.

Martin had a right to be there, and so did Zimmerman. Neither was breaking the law prior to the incident. As to whether or not he was 'moving away' from Zimmerman or posed a threat, again, I have no idea. I don't think you do either.

Now we get to the point of the story, where Trayvon was "seen" attacking Zimmerman and getting the upper hand. Now, before I go on, most of you know my view s on race in the US, I am by no mean a fan of Sharpton and his race baiting crew. That being said, if a black man in a black neighbourhood followed a white teen, with a pistol in hand, and confronted him. Then if the white teen fought with him, and got shot in the process, the black guy, even considering the "stand your ground" law would be in prison on a death penalty rap.
Trayvon saw a man with a weapon in hand, and decided to try to defend himself, period!

That's an interesting opinion. So far, it's not backed by any facts, so it appears to be conjecture. I'd be interested to know how you got from the known facts to your final opinion.

But bottom line, even by your description, if Zimmerman was there legally and not breaking the law, and Martin attacked him (as Zimmerman stated happened), if Zimmerman reasonably felt himself in immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury, he had the right to defend himself with lethal force. The only way that would not be case would be if a) Zimmerman is lying and was not attacked by Martin or b) Zimmerman was not reasonably in fear of death or great bodily harm or c) Zimmerman was there illegally after all. I don't think any of that has been shown as of yet. If there is such evidence, I have yet to see it.

 

[yorkshirelad]

Bill,
I have a problem with Neighbourhood Watch programs. To me, it's not about rights, it's about annoyance. Many times these programs are begun with the best of intentions, and then become a hobby for wannabee tough guys who have nothing better to do with their time.
It seems that Neighbourhood Watch, on occasion turns into Neighbourhood Follow and Shoot the guy who looks out of place.

Bill, you seem to work largely on semantic. Yes, a 911 dispatcher has no right to order a citizen not to follow a suspicious individual, but he was advised not to. Then he made a racial slur and proceeded to do so anywhere. Zimmerman, at the very least, let his testosterone get the better of him. It does not look good for him to have followed Trayvon, given that Trayvon posed no apparent threat to him.

Oh, and Bill, I know that Trayvon was walking away from Zimmerman, because you cannot follow someone who is walking toward you. It is simply impossible.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill,
I have a problem with Neighbourhood Watch programs. To me, it's not about rights, it's about annoyance. Many times these programs are begun with the best of intentions, and then become a hobby for wannabee tough guys who have nothing better to do with their time.

Hasn't been my experience.

It seems that Neighbourhood Watch, on occasion turns into Neighbourhood Follow and Shoot the guy who looks out of place.

Like when?

Bill, you seem to work largely on semantic. Yes, a 911 dispatcher has no right to order a citizen not to follow a suspicious individual, but he was advised not to. Then he made a racial slur and proceeded to do so anywhere. Zimmerman, at the very least, let his testosterone get the better of him. It does not look good for him to have followed Trayvon, given that Trayvon posed no apparent threat to him.

Regardless of how it 'looks', it's legal. That's the important bit for law enforcement purposes.

And I think the 'racial slur' thing isn't panning out. Seems CNN has stated that after saying it was, they have enhanced the audio and now say it wasn't. Regardless, that also has no bearing on whether or not Zimmerman was within his rights to use deadly force.

Oh, and Bill, I know that Trayvon was walking away from Zimmerman, because you cannot follow someone who is walking toward you. It is simply impossible.

From Zimmerman's statement to police, he was following Taylor, lost sight of him, exited his vehicle, could not find him, and was 'jumped' by Taylor as he returned to his vehicle. Whether that happened or not, I cannot say. But if his statement is true, then yes, you can follow someone and have them approach you; by losing them. Zimmerman could absolutely be lying; but his is the only statement we have.

 

[MJS]

As a dispatcher myself, I've told people to do or not do certain things many times. Its usually something for their own good, ie: husband and wife domestic. Wife calls the cops. I always make a point of telling the person I'm talking to, to stay away from the other person...go to another room, leave the house and wait outside, etc. Whether or not they do that, is totally out of my control.

However, I have to agree with yorkshirelad. I've said it myself....IMO, Zimmerman was a wanna be. Alot of "security type people" are the same. Alot of the time, they tend to over step what they're supposed to do vs. what they're not supposed to do. And before anyone says I dont know what i'm talking about, I worked in security for an insurance co. here in CT. I wasn't a cop. I was there to help the employees, visitors, and to deter people. But if I was driving thru a parking lot and saw someone breaking into a car, I'm certainly not going to get out and confront the person. I'd simply call in what I was seeing.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

As a dispatcher myself, I've told people to do or not do certain things many times. Its usually something for their own good, ie: husband and wife domestic. Wife calls the cops. I always make a point of telling the person I'm talking to, to stay away from the other person...go to another room, leave the house and wait outside, etc. Whether or not they do that, is totally out of my control.

I have also been a dispatcher for a largish metro police department...I have the same experiences you have had, and I agree with you.

However, I have to agree with yorkshirelad. I've said it myself....IMO, Zimmerman was a wanna be. Alot of "security type people" are the same. Alot of the time, they tend to over step what they're supposed to do vs. what they're not supposed to do. And before anyone says I dont know what i'm talking about, I worked in security for an insurance co. here in CT. I wasn't a cop. I was there to help the employees, visitors, and to deter people. But if I was driving thru a parking lot and saw someone breaking into a car, I'm certainly not going to get out and confront the person. I'd simply call in what I was seeing.

I'm not disagreeing. I'm staying it's largely irrelevant to potential criminal charges.

 

[ballen0351]

Haa people dont listen to me when Im in full uniform, armed, and standing right in front of them why would you expect anyone to listen to someone on the phone.

 

[billc]

Here is a question for the LEO's on martial talk, If I am in a public area and just following someone, not touching in anyway, have I broken any law or can I be arrested for any reason? My point is still, they were both in a public space, both had the legal right to be there since Zimmerman lived there and Martin was visiting. The guy who touched the other guy first initiated the fight. Right...

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Haa people dont listen to me when Im in full uniform, armed, and standing right in front of them why would you expect anyone to listen to someone on the phone.

I think people tend to believe that the police can give orders to citizens, and that if a person fails to obey that order, they are breaking the law. Well, anyone can give anyone an order; the question is, what happens if someone refuses to obey that order? Are they breaking the law?

In some cases, it may be true; such as 'move along' orders. Failure to comply can lead to arrest. Other cases are not as clear. And dispatchers, in many jurisdictions, are not sworn officers. Such dispatchers could under no circumstances given anyone a lawful order.

And all of that is quite aside from the fact that the dispatcher did not actually order Zimmerman not to follow Martin.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Here is a question for the LEO's on martial talk, If I am in a public area and just following someone, not touching in anyway, have I broken any law or can I be arrested for any reason? My point is still, they were both in a public space, both had the legal right to be there since Zimmerman lived there and Martin was visiting. The guy who touched the other guy first initiated the fight. Right...

There are anti-stalking laws and laws against harassment; a person can certainly expose themselves to such charges by following someone around. It generally takes more than a casual encounter of this sort to bring charges such as that, however. IANAL, and not a LEO in a long time. Just my 2 cents.

 

[ballen0351]

Here is a question for the LEO's on martial talk, If I am in a public area and just following someone, not touching in anyway, have I broken any law or can I be arrested for any reason?

Every state is different but here people can go anywhere you can go as long as they not on private property . They can park their car outside your house and sit there for hours if they want and there is nothing you can do as long as they are on a public street.

 

[ballen0351]

I think people tend to believe that the police can give orders to citizens, and that if a person fails to obey that order, they are breaking the law. Well, anyone can give anyone an order; the question is, what happens if someone refuses to obey that order? Are they breaking the law?

Depends on the state but here we have a law "Fail to Obey a lawful order of a Law Enforcement Officer." Its the Lawful Order part that is always questioned in court. Was what I told you to do legal?

And dispatchers, in many jurisdictions, are not sworn officers. Such dispatchers could under no circumstances given anyone a lawful order.

True here they are not sworn and even if they were Im not sure you could order someone to do anything over the phone.

And all of that is quite aside from the fact that the dispatcher did not actually order Zimmerman not to follow Martin.

Your correct just another lie to add to the list the news media has put out to sell more air time and papers on this case.

 

[zDom]

The guy who touched the other guy first initiated the fight. Right...

I don't think so.

Assault can happen BEFORE physical contact: "an act that causes another to apprehend immediate and personal violence, or in the more limited sense of a threat of violence caused by an immediate show of force" as Wikipedia puts it.

Battery is once physical contact has been made.


If someone has got an angry look on their face, is telling me they are going to kick my *** and is balling up their fist and pulling it back, you are suggesting that I have to wait till he makes CONTACT before defending myself?


"Who touched who first" is a fallacy.

 

[billc]

Is that from the actual legal code, just asking? At this point we have Martin saying he was being followed, and nothing else. We don't even have...

If someone has got an angry look on their face, is telling me they are going to kick my *** and is balling up their fist and pulling it back, you are suggesting that I have to wait till he makes CONTACT before defending myself?

We don't know that there was any "pulling back of a fist or even an angry look on anyones face to provide a motive for the escalation that occurred.

Now coming out is the map of the scene and the distances involved in the movements of Zimmerman and Martin. I don't think the truth here is going to matter much any way. It is an election year and obama and Holder aren't going to let this big case get away from them, but we will see.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

As far as I can tell, there are many possible reasonable interpretations of the sequence of events leading up to the shooting. However, I do not think that any of them can be proven, including whether or not Zimmerman is lying about his account of events.

At issue is not whether or not Martin was in the area legally; he was.
At issue is not whether or not Zimmerman was in the area legally; he was.

All of that is beside the noise and sturm-und-drang surrounding motives like racism and wanna-be-cop-ism and whatever else. None of that matters for the purposes of determining whether or not Zimmerman was legally permitted to fire his weapon and kill Martin.

To know the answer to that, however, we have to know things that may not be knowable. And that, I am sure, is frosting a lot of people's biscuits, not to mention the anguish and pain it has to be causing the family of Martin and Zimmerman (for different reasons).

If Zimmerman's account of the sequence of events from the moment he left his vehicle to the time he fired his weapon are correct, then I do not believe the state has anything with which to charge him. If what he said was true, then a 'reasonable' mean who was having his head pounded into the pavement by a person on top of him would be reasonably in fear of his life and legally justified in the state of Florida in defending himself with lethal force. I just don't see any other way around that.

If, however, Zimmerman is lying about the sequence of events after he left his truck, then he may well have stepped well outside the boundaries of Florida's self-defense laws. He could be charged with a criminal offense, and given the public and media attention on this case, I am sure he would be.

The problem is that there are no eye-witnesses to the moments immediately prior to the shooting except those who generally back up what Zimmerman claims happened. One witness, as I understand it, saw two men struggling on the ground. That does not mean Martin was on top or Zimmerman was on top, but it agrees with Zimmerman's statement that there was a fight on the ground. There are no witnesses, and no evidence, to the best of my knowledge, that Zimmerman was on top of Martin.

There is no one to contradict Zimmerman's statement that Martin approached him as he made is way back to his truck after losing sight of him. No one and no evidence that I am aware of can place Zimmerman tracking, stalking, or engaging Martin outside of Zimmerman's truck when both were on foot. We only have Zimmerman's statement.

In the end, I think the possibility of a criminal charge against Zimmerman comes down to any evidence which would tend to contradict Zimmerman's story. Since there does not appear to be any, I do not think Zimmerman will be charged with a crime.

That does not mean I think he is not guilty. I just don't think there is even enough evidence at the moment (that I know of) to support criminal charges, let alone obtain a conviction.

I know that chaps a lot of asses, but I don't know how else it could end. The other things people keep tossing around are noise, they have virtually no meaning in a criminal case. He's a racist? That might go to motive, but motive isn't evidence. And there isn't even much if any evidence of that. He was ordered by the police dispatcher not to follow Martin? No, it's pretty clear that didn't happen, not to mention the fact that dispatchers can't give citizens lawful orders, especially over the phone. Martin was the one attacked? Definitely possible, but again, no proof. Martin was in the area legally and wasn't committing any crimes? True but irrelevant.

I only hope that when the DA and the state and the feds all agree that there is no crime they can charge anyone with, that there is not a violent response on the part of the public who hunger for an arrest, prosecution, and conviction.

 

[MJS]

I'm not disagreeing. I'm staying it's largely irrelevant to potential criminal charges.

But, as its been said, his actions could be deemed criminal. Harassing, stalking....I dont know the FL laws, so who knows if that would apply.

 

[MJS]

As far as I can tell, there are many possible reasonable interpretations of the sequence of events leading up to the shooting. However, I do not think that any of them can be proven, including whether or not Zimmerman is lying about his account of events.

At issue is not whether or not Martin was in the area legally; he was.
At issue is not whether or not Zimmerman was in the area legally; he was.

All of that is beside the noise and sturm-und-drang surrounding motives like racism and wanna-be-cop-ism and whatever else. None of that matters for the purposes of determining whether or not Zimmerman was legally permitted to fire his weapon and kill Martin.

To know the answer to that, however, we have to know things that may not be knowable. And that, I am sure, is frosting a lot of people's biscuits, not to mention the anguish and pain it has to be causing the family of Martin and Zimmerman (for different reasons).

If Zimmerman's account of the sequence of events from the moment he left his vehicle to the time he fired his weapon are correct, then I do not believe the state has anything with which to charge him. If what he said was true, then a 'reasonable' mean who was having his head pounded into the pavement by a person on top of him would be reasonably in fear of his life and legally justified in the state of Florida in defending himself with lethal force. I just don't see any other way around that.

If, however, Zimmerman is lying about the sequence of events after he left his truck, then he may well have stepped well outside the boundaries of Florida's self-defense laws. He could be charged with a criminal offense, and given the public and media attention on this case, I am sure he would be.

The problem is that there are no eye-witnesses to the moments immediately prior to the shooting except those who generally back up what Zimmerman claims happened. One witness, as I understand it, saw two men struggling on the ground. That does not mean Martin was on top or Zimmerman was on top, but it agrees with Zimmerman's statement that there was a fight on the ground. There are no witnesses, and no evidence, to the best of my knowledge, that Zimmerman was on top of Martin.

There is no one to contradict Zimmerman's statement that Martin approached him as he made is way back to his truck after losing sight of him. No one and no evidence that I am aware of can place Zimmerman tracking, stalking, or engaging Martin outside of Zimmerman's truck when both were on foot. We only have Zimmerman's statement.

In the end, I think the possibility of a criminal charge against Zimmerman comes down to any evidence which would tend to contradict Zimmerman's story. Since there does not appear to be any, I do not think Zimmerman will be charged with a crime.

That does not mean I think he is not guilty. I just don't think there is even enough evidence at the moment (that I know of) to support criminal charges, let alone obtain a conviction.

I know that chaps a lot of asses, but I don't know how else it could end. The other things people keep tossing around are noise, they have virtually no meaning in a criminal case. He's a racist? That might go to motive, but motive isn't evidence. And there isn't even much if any evidence of that. He was ordered by the police dispatcher not to follow Martin? No, it's pretty clear that didn't happen, not to mention the fact that dispatchers can't give citizens lawful orders, especially over the phone. Martin was the one attacked? Definitely possible, but again, no proof. Martin was in the area legally and wasn't committing any crimes? True but irrelevant.

I only hope that when the DA and the state and the feds all agree that there is no crime they can charge anyone with, that there is not a violent response on the part of the public who hunger for an arrest, prosecution, and conviction.

Well, as usual Bill, good points. I too, have asked, earlier in this thread, if Zimmerman was legally justified to carry and shoot. And you're right...there's probably ALOT we don't know, and will never know. Martin is dead...can't ask him. Zimmerman of course, whether he was right or wrong, would probably never admit any wrong doing, so that theory is dead. As for witnesses....well, I wonder...was there a witness that saw this whole thing go down? I'm not talking about someone who heard a scream or some disturbance. I'm talking about a start to finish eye witness? IMO, someone peeking out their door, once they heard yelling, is not a solid witness. Why? Because they're only seeing part of the story. It'd be like coming in at the 1hr mark of a 2hr movie and be expected to give an accurate description of the whole thing.

 

[ballen0351]

According to the specially assigned prosecutor there will me no murder charge for zimmerman