Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[crimresearch]

AHHHH... I was wondering when this shoe was going to drop

ORLANDO, Fla. -
State Attorney Norm Wolfinger announced Tuesday that the Seminole County grand jury will convene April 10 regarding the federal investigation into the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Gr...-case/-/1637132/9585152/-/edibcr/-/index.html

 

[sgtbaker]

Did Zimmerman know for a fact that a crime had been committed or was about to be committed?

No, he didn't nor did anyone claim that a crime was being committed. He was reporting what he saw as suspicious behavior.

He got out of his car. He pursued the victim.

Not breaking any laws.

Not my argument. Getting of his car to pursue an innocent person when no crime is being committed and no one is in imminent danger is reckless.

You only know no crime wasn't being committed because after the fact, we've learned that he was just a 17 year old boy visiting his father. Zimmerman did not have to luxury of reading all of this before he pursued the victim.

A distinction without a difference.

How is him being advised relevant but not being advised suddenly doesn't make a difference? He was not advised, he was just told that they don't need him to do that, for his own safety, because at this point, police are responding to a suspicious, individual. At this point, the dispatcher doesn't know that it is just an unarmed 17 year old boy, looking for his father's girlfriends townhouse.

I don't argue that he "felt" or "knew" he was going to use his gun. The definition doesn't call for feelings or premonitions or hope or knowledge that one is going to use a gun or anything of the sort. It is simply the knowledge that you have a gun and that your actions can lead to the death of another for no cause (see definition above).

An act of proceeding to do something with a conscious awareness of danger, while ignoring any potential consequences of so doing. Reckless disregard, while not necessarily suggesting an intent to cause harm, is a harsher condition than ordinary negligence.

If he didn't feel, know, or have a reason to believe he was going to use his gun, how is he to even consider that a death is likely? The gun may have been incidental at this point. He may have just had it on him when Martin ran and he chose to follow.

 

[RandFan]

No, he didn't nor did anyone claim that a crime was being committed. He was reporting what he saw as suspicious behavior.

Insufficent justification to put another persons life in danger.

Not breaking any laws.

You don't have to break a law to act recklessly.

You only know no crime wasn't being committed because after the fact...

Straw man argument. I only need to know what Zimmerman knew. That's it. All this other "after the fact" is just a red herring.

How is him being advised relevant but not being advised suddenly doesn't make a difference? He was not advised, he was just told that they don't need him to do that, for his own safety, because at this point, police are responding to a suspicious, individual. At this point, the dispatcher doesn't know that it is just an unarmed 17 year old boy, looking for his father's girlfriends townhouse.

I'm sorry but I don't understand what any of this has to do with anything. Zimmerman didn't need to pursue Martin regardless of whether Martin was armed or not.

If he didn't feel, know, or have a reason to believe he was going to use his gun, how is he to seven consider that a death is likely? The gun may have been incidental at this point. He may have just had it on him when Martin ran and he chose to follow.

Are you serious? I can't take this serious but, I'll humor you. Zimmerman knew he was armed. Zimmerman suspected Martin. Zimmerman pursued Martin. Zimmerman has no cause to pursue Martin.

That's reckless. And any suggestion that Zimmerman was not aware that there was potential for danger is absurd. Come on.

 

[Unabogie]

So now that we know that Martin walked fast and at times ran from Zimmerman, but that Zimmerman still managed to catch up with him and "cornered" him (based on the phone call with Martin's girlfriend), we can say for sure that Zimmerman "chased" after Martin. That was a point of contention here, but I think it's pretty established at this point.

Also, this contradicts what Zimmerman told police. He told them he only got out of the car to look at the street sign and then was attacked from behind as he returned to his car. But the witness on the phone says he confronted Martin.

http://www.theatlantic.com/ta-nehisi-coates/

 

[Mumbles]

No, he didn't nor did anyone claim that a crime was being committed. He was reporting what he saw as suspicious behavior.

so, he's now pursuing a person who is completely innocent of any crime. He ought to know, then, that the person he's chasing has no requirement to answer any question he poses, that any attempt to detain him will be a crime, and that he is now being provocative.

Not breaking any laws.

As I recall, the Stand Your Ground law doesn't require any illegal behavior, just provocative. So, by pursuing, Zimmerman is now the provocative party, and his self-defense claim becomes far stronger. However, since moving away from someone who is glaring at you is not at all provocative or suspicious in any way, Martin now has the right to stand his ground.

You only know no crime wasn't being committed because after the fact, we've learned that he was just a 17 year old boy visiting his father. Zimmerman did not have to luxury of reading all of this before he pursued the victim.

Then Zimmerman was being reckless. And actually, looking around and walking are not crimes, nor are they suspicious, but staring at someone and then pursuing them are extremely suspicious (in fact, it's downright threatening), and if his first words are "What are you doing here", then that's even worse.

How is him being advised relevant but not being advised suddenly doesn't make a difference? He was not advised, he was just told that they don't need him to do that, for his own safety, because at this point, police are responding to a suspicious, individual. At this point, the dispatcher doesn't know that it is just an unarmed 17 year old boy, looking for his father's girlfriends townhouse.

Not having advise doesn't mean that you aren't being reckless, simply put. However, ignoring advise from a professional, without having a strong reason to do so, does make it more clear that you are being downright foolish. In other words, he did something reckless, and ignored third party advise that he was being reckless.

If he didn't feel, know, or have a reason to believe he was going to use his gun, how is he to even consider that a death is likely? The gun may have been incidental at this point. He may have just had it on him when Martin ran and he chose to follow.

Because he was provoking a fight, the fact that he also brought a deadly weapon into the confrontation means that he bears at least moral responsibility for if it's used. And since he's the one that used it, after provoking a fight, he bears responsibility for the consequences.

Add to that, he seems to have lied to investigators, who themselves seem to have done a very bad job both of investigating, and of managing public relations (actually, they've been disastrous at PR). Yeah, I'm not surprised to see this amount of anger on display over this.

 

[RandFan]

If he didn't feel, know, or have a reason to believe he was going to use his gun, how is he to even consider that a death is likely? The gun may have been incidental at this point. He may have just had it on him when Martin ran and he chose to follow.

Because he was provoking a fight, the fact that he also brought a deadly weapon into the confrontation means that he bears at least moral responsibility for if it's used. And since he's the one that used it, after provoking a fight, he bears responsibility for the consequences.

Exactly, even if we were to believe Zimmerman forgot all about his gun it doesn't resolve him of his responsibility for his deadly weapon. You don't get to use the "I forgot" excuse when you put others lives at danger.

 

[DavidByron]

If it's anything to you, all these sort of discussions about how it is a license to kill went on in the abstract, seven years ago when the law was introduced too. That opinion is not a result of the hyped emotions and charges of racism in this case.

 

[sgtbaker]

Insufficent justification to put another persons life in danger.

You don't have to break a law to act recklessly.

Look, I don't disagree with you position in the events. Even if Martin was a part of the recent burglaries, it's not worth his life. I don't want to argue that Zimmerman is right in his choices.

Straw man argument. I only need to know what Zimmerman knew. That's it. All this other "after the fact" is just a red herring.

By all means, enlighten me on what Zimmerman knew, at the time.

I'm sorry but I don't understand what any of this has to do with anything. Zimmerman didn't need to pursue Martin regardless of whether Martin was armed or not.

I honestly have no idea. I was just replying to your list of facts, one of them being that he pursued after being advised not to. If being advised or not is irrelevant, I don't know why you even bothered to include it in the first place.

Are you serious? I can't take this serious but, I'll humor you. Zimmerman knew he was armed. Zimmerman suspected Martin. Zimmerman pursued Martin. Zimmerman has no cause to pursue Martin.

That's reckless. And any suggestion that Zimmerman was not aware that there was potential for danger is absurd. Come on.

My point is, where was the gun before he got out of the car? Was it on his person, the glove box, the passenger seat; where was the gun prior to the pursuit?

 

[crimresearch]

So Zimmerman is under grand jury investigation, under FDLE investigation, he and the local cops are under federal investigation, his story is unsupported at every turn, the process of tearing his story apart began as soon as the victim's parents protested the local PD inaction... but he has a license to kill people legally, and the law says that he has gotten away with murder?

On what planet?

 

[RandFan]

By all means, enlighten me on what Zimmerman knew, at the time.

GLADLY.

• There was no basis to believe that anyone was in imminent danger.
• Zimmerman lacked any knowledge of a crime.

I honestly have no idea. I was just replying to your list of facts, one of them being that he pursued after being advised not to. If being advised or not is irrelevant, I don't know why you even bothered to include it in the first place.

Because it put Zimmerman on notice that he didn't need to follow Martin. It goes to state of mind.

• There existed no evidence or reasonable basis that Martin was committing a crime.
• There existed no evidence that danger was imminent if Zimmerman did not act.
• The police were on their way.
• They did not need Zimmerman's help.

My point is, where was the gun before he got out of the car? Was it on his person, the glove box, the passenger seat; where was the gun prior to the pursuit?

Doesn't make any difference. Having the gun meant that Martin was expected to take care of the gun and act in a manner that would not put innocent life at risk. Arming himself put the moral responsibility of that gun in Zimmerman's hands regardless of where the gun was prior to it being in Zimmerman's possession at the time of the shooting.

 

[sgtbaker]

so, he's now pursuing a person who is completely innocent of any crime. He ought to know, then, that the person he's chasing has no requirement to answer any question he poses, that any attempt to detain him will be a crime, and that he is now being provocative.

Who says he intended to detain him?

As I recall, the Stand Your Ground law doesn't require any illegal behavior, just provocative. So, by pursuing, Zimmerman is now the provocative party, and his self-defense claim becomes far stronger. However, since moving away from someone who is glaring at you is not at all provocative or suspicious in any way, Martin now has the right to stand his ground.

I never said Martin was an aggressor. As a matter of fact, I said the reported conversation between Martin and Zimmerman doesn't sound like Zimmerman was blitzed by Martin. Don't mistake me calling out speculation as defending Zimmerman.

Then Zimmerman was being reckless. And actually, looking around and walking are not crimes, nor are they suspicious, but staring at someone and then pursuing them are extremely suspicious (in fact, it's downright threatening), and if his first words are "What are you doing here", then that's even worse.

It is not a crime, nor is it reckless to ask someone what they are doing here. When my friend came to visit, my neighbor didn't know who he was. He just saw a strange man walking around my back yard and asked him what he was doing there. My friend told him, then came in and told me, and I went out and thanked my neighbor for looking out for me.

Not having advise doesn't mean that you aren't being reckless, simply put. However, ignoring advise from a professional, without having a strong reason to do so, does make it more clear that you are being downright foolish. In other words, he did something reckless, and ignored third party advise that he was being reckless.

First off, what would be a strong reason to do so? Secondly, the dispatcher did not warn that it was reckless to follow.

Because he was provoking a fight, the fact that he also brought a deadly weapon into the confrontation means that he bears at least moral responsibility for if it's used. And since he's the one that used it, after provoking a fight, he bears responsibility for the consequences.

All we know is that Martin said, "Why are you following me?" and Zimmerman asked, "What are you doing here?" Then the phone went dead. Now, "What are you doing here?" is provocative?

Add to that, he seems to have lied to investigators, who themselves seem to have done a very bad job both of investigating, and of managing public relations (actually, they've been disastrous at PR). Yeah, I'm not surprised to see this amount of anger on display over this

I have no need to defend the investigation process. From my best understanding of the process people shared in this thread, they failed to do some pretty standard work. We don't have any proof that he lied to investigators beyond one news article claiming he said he got out of the car to look at the street sign. It was not in quotes and I did not see that anywhere else. He was quite honest, in the call with the dispatcher, that he was following Martin.

 

[RandFan]

It is not a crime, nor is it reckless to ask someone what they are doing here.

Given that Zimmerman called 9/11 there is very good reason to believe that Zimmerman suspected danger. This wasn't a casual encounter. Otherwise there would not have been a need to call.

When my friend came to visit, my neighbor didn't know who he was. He just saw a strange man walking around my back yard and asked him what he was doing there. My friend told him, then came in and told me, and I went out and thanked my neighbor for looking out for me.

Did the neighbor call 9/11 and talk about your friend in ominous tones?

The two episodes simply do not compare.

 

[crimresearch]

Don't mistake me calling out speculation as defending Zimmerman.

Oh, but that is so clearly the game of the day.

 

[RandFan]

Don't mistake me calling out speculation as defending Zimmerman.

Oh, but that is so clearly the game of the day.

I've stated facts and formed an opinion about those facts. No speculation.

• Zimmerman knew the police were on there way.
• Zimmerman had no reason to believe a crime was being committed.
• Zimmerman had no reason to believe anyone was in danger.
• There was nothing Zimmerman need do.
• It was reckless to pursue Martin after the 9/11 operator said "we don't need you to do that".

"Need", what "need" was there for Zimmerman to pursue Martin? Absent a "need" to pursue Martin and carrying a loaded weapon I would submit that it was indeed reckless in the least.

 

[sgtbaker]

GLADLY.

• There was no basis to believe that anyone was in imminent danger.
• Zimmerman lacked any knowledge of a crime.

Anyone being in danger was not even a factor when he called the police, he was concerned about recent burglaries and saw an unfamiliar person, walking around in the rain, checking out houses. Is he justified in being suspicious?

Because it put Zimmerman on notice that he didn't need to follow Martin. It goes to state of mind.

...and then later in the conversation the dispatcher agreed to just have the officer call when he arrived so they can pick a location to meet at. Doesn't sound so much the the dispatcher found this to be an issue.

There existed no evidence or reasonable basis that Martin was committing a crime.

From Martin's perspective, there is this creepy guy sitting in a car, staring at me. Perfectly justified in running, I would run too. From Zimmerman's perspective, there is this suspicious looking guy wandering around the neighborhood. The fact that he mentioned the recent burglaries suggests that he thinks this stranger might have something to do with them (profiling? probably). The stranger approaches his car and then takes off running. Zimmerman, having recently lamented about them always getting away decides to follow.

There existed no evidence that danger was imminent if Zimmerman did not act.

I don't know if you just like to have longer lists but no one is claiming imminent threat to a person.

 

[sgtbaker]

Given that Zimmerman called 9/11 there is very good reason to believe that Zimmerman suspected danger. This wasn't a casual encounter. Otherwise there would not have been a need to call.

He didn't call 911 he called the police nonemergency hotline.

Did the neighbor call 9/11 and talk about your friend in ominous tones?

The two episodes simply do not compare

The only point I was making is that "What are you doing here;" are not fighting words.

 

[RandFan]

Anyone being in danger was not even a factor when he called the police, he was concerned about recent burglaries and saw an unfamiliar person, walking around in the rain, checking out houses. Is he justified in being suspicious?

Absent imminent danger and given the police were on there way there was no need to pursue Martin.

...and then later in the conversation the dispatcher agreed to just have the officer call when he arrived so they can pick a location to meet at. Doesn't sound so much the the dispatcher found this to be an issue.

This does not in any way respond to my point.

From Zimmerman's perspective, there is this suspicious looking guy wandering around the neighborhood. The fact that he mentioned the recent burglaries suggests that he thinks this stranger might have something to do with them (profiling? probably). The stranger approaches his car and then takes off running. Zimmerman, having recently lamented about them always getting away decides to follow.

A reckless course of action.

• Zimmerman had no basis to believe a crime had been committed.
• Zimmerman had no basis to believe anyone was in imminent danger.
• The police were on their way.
• There was no need to pursue Martin while carrying a loaded weapon.

I don't know if you just like to have longer lists but no one is claiming imminent threat to a person.

Absent imminent danger or the commission of a crime there was no need to pursue Martin.

• I'm telling you why Zimmerman didn't need to pursue Martin.
• You are not telling me why he did.

 

[RandFan]

He didn't call 911 he called the police nonemergency hotline.

It was reported on ABC that it was 9/11. I will check but I don't think it makes much difference. Clearly Zimmerman had real concerns.

The only point I was making is that "What are you doing here;" are not fighting words.

In the call Zimmerman's state of mind doesn't seem casual. A person doesn't need to speak to be threatening and how a person asks "what are you doing here" can be.

But I confess that outside of the girlfriends account I have no idea.

 

[Matthew Best]

It was reported on ABC that it was 9/11.

9/11 is a date. The number is just 911.

 

[RandFan]

9/11 is a date. The number is just 911.

DOH!

Okay, that's my cue. I've given my uneducated opinion. Let's see what happens.