Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[triforcharity]

According to MSNBC, Zimmerman can be heard using a racial slur on uncensored versions of his phone call to the police.

Here's the recording:



At the 1:45 mark, the dispatcher asks Zimmerman what entrance the "suspicious person" is near; Zimmerman tells them, and a few seconds later seems to whisper "these f***ing coons" to himself right before the dispatcher asks if he's following the subject.

I hear it, but I am not convinced it's accurate. Could it be? Sure. But, I'm not convinced.

 

[sgtbaker]

I hear it, but I am not convinced it's accurate. Could it be? Sure. But, I'm not convinced.

I listened to it about six times. My guess; it sounds like the phone slipped down and he said, "*********** phones."

 

[Tricky]

I really don't see how anyone could confuse this. A neighborhood watch guy, looking for evildoers, starts following a guy. The guy tries to run away (and there are phone records to verify it) and then there is a confrontation. Who caused the confrontation? Who was within their rights to fight back (with fists and skittles) against an obviously threatening person? Martin. If some stalker came up to you and started asking questions about who you were and what you were doing, wouldn't you feel threatened? Wouldn't you be justified (under Florida law) in using force to defend yourself?

While I can understand why folks might want to play devil's advocate here, I think that they should also admit that any scenario that clears Zimmerman of a crime is, at best, highly unlikely.

 

[WildCat]

Well, except that from what Zimmerman said, he was wearing a headset. So he was perfectly able to run and talk on the phone at the same time.

I am certain that Martin believed he would reach his father's residence for safety.

But hey, we can speculate all day long about what went through Martin's mind, but it's a moot point, because he's dead.

If he couldn't dial he could have instructed the girl to call 911. And Martin's state of mind will certainly be an issue in any trial, if Zimmerman is going to claim he was attacked first.

 

[Roadtoad]

I really don't see how anyone could confuse this. A neighborhood watch guy starts following a guy. The guy tries to run away (and there are phone records to verify it) and then there is a confrontation. Who caused the confrontation? Who was within their rights to fight back (with fists and skittles) against an obviously threatening person? Martin. If some stalker came up to you and started asking questions about who you were and what you were doing, wouldn't you feel threatened? Wouldn't you be justified (under Florida law) in using force to defend yourself?

While I can understand why folks might want to play devil's advocate here, I think that they should also admit that any scenario that clears Zimmerman of a crime is, at best, highly unlikely.

I'd say "non-existent." Zimmerman, regardless of what he said on the phone to the police dispatcher, violated a clear and lawful order. He killed an innocent child.

This is not going to end well.

 

[Tricky]

This is not going to end well.

The only possible silver lining I can see is that maybe this hideous law will be removed. Maybe Martin's death will prevent others.

 

[WildCat]

Maybe he was too concerned with getting to the safety of his fathers house?

Maybe, but all a defense attorney has to do is provide reasonable doubt.

While true, how many 17y/o kids with no history whatsoever of violence, no history whatsoever of any kind of trouble, legal or otherwise, who is outweighed by ~100lbs, go on the attack of a random person?

It wasn't a random person, it was a person he was concerned was after him. And the papers are filled with honor students and choir boys who get convicted of violent crimes, much to the shock of everyone who knew them. So much so that there's the cliche of the serial killer's neighbor who says the guy seemed so nice and and quiet and even helped shovel snow and carry groceries. Hell, everyone who knows the soldier who went on the Afghanistan rampage says he was a nice family man and they're absolutely shocked he could do such a thing.

Doesn't make any damn sense, now does it?

Not to mention, the story that Zimmerman gave matched exactly NONE of the evidence whatsoever, nor does it make a damn bit of logical sense.

Please tell me you don't actually believe the **** you post, and you're just playing devils advocate?

Of course I'm playing devil's advocate, but these are questions the prosecution is going to have to deal with. All the defense needs is reasonable doubt, the prosecution has the burden of proof.

 

[Roadtoad]

Of course I'm playing devil's advocate, but these are questions the prosecution is going to have to deal with. All the defense needs is reasonable doubt, the prosecution has the burden of proof.

This. Seriously.

 

[WildCat]

It sounded like a young person on the 911 tapes.

A 17 year old male has an adult voice. You cease to have a child's voice once you hit puberty... didn't you ever watch the Brady Bunch?

 

[Roadtoad]

A 17 year old male has an adult voice. You cease to have a child's voice once you hit puberty... didn't you ever watch the Brady Bunch?

Now I'm going to be stuck with their sick bubblegum music in my head.

Damn you. That's even worse than the Archies "Sugar, Sugar."

 

[WildCat]

I really don't see how anyone could confuse this. A neighborhood watch guy, looking for evildoers, starts following a guy. The guy tries to run away (and there are phone records to verify it) and then there is a confrontation. Who caused the confrontation? Who was within their rights to fight back (with fists and skittles) against an obviously threatening person? Martin. If some stalker came up to you and started asking questions about who you were and what you were doing, wouldn't you feel threatened? Wouldn't you be justified (under Florida law) in using force to defend yourself?

I don't think you can start hitting a person for asking you questions, or following you, in any state.

 

[WildCat]

I'd say "non-existent." Zimmerman, regardless of what he said on the phone to the police dispatcher, violated a clear and lawful order. He killed an innocent child.

"we don't need you to do that" is not a lawful order by any stretch.

 

[WildCat]

The only possible silver lining I can see is that maybe this hideous law will be removed. Maybe Martin's death will prevent others.

I really don't see what that law has to do with it under Zimmerman's claimed scenario.

 

[Tricky]

I don't think you can start hitting a person for asking you questions, or following you, in any state.

Why yes. Yes you can in Florida, as long as they were acting in a threatening manner. Hell, you can even shoot them. So why don't we ask Martin if that's what happened? Oops. Can't do that. He's dead.

Do you, WildCat, think that the scenario Zimmereman "just asking questions" is likely? I'm not asking what is provable. I'm asking what you think.

 

[Roadtoad]

"we don't need you to do that" is not a lawful order by any stretch.

If it were me, (and I've been there), I'd back off. It might not be an explicit order, but it's still an order.

 

[Checkmite]

Another question: the officer in charge of the - I hesitate to call it an "investigation" - noted blood on Zimmerman's face and the back of his head. Did he bother to document or photograph or verify that these were actual injuries (as opposed to Martin's blood, splashed on him)? Or is there in fact no evidence Zimmerman was actually injured?

 

[crimresearch]

Another question: the officer in charge of the - I hesitate to call it an "investigation" - noted blood on Zimmerman's face and the back of his head. Did he bother to document or photograph or verify that these were actual injuries (as opposed to Martin's blood, splashed on him)? Or is there in fact no evidence Zimmerman was actually injured?

That would have been SOP. If anyone was following SOP.

But again, just the fact that there were injuries sustained without knowing the exact circumstances, can't be assumed to prove either side.

 

[WildCat]

Why yes. Yes you can in Florida, as long as they were acting in a threatening manner. Hell, you can even shoot them. So why don't we ask Martin if that's what happened? Oops. Can't do that. He's dead.

Do you, WildCat, think that the scenario Zimmereman "just asking questions" is likely? I'm not asking what is provable. I'm asking what you think.

Yes, it's unlikely. But we have access to only a fraction of the information available. For example, we don't know how far away from Zimmerman's truck the shooting occurred, and whether or not Martin ran after being shot and if so how far. We also don't know the exact timeline of the 911 calls.

 

[WildCat]

Another question: the officer in charge of the - I hesitate to call it an "investigation" - noted blood on Zimmerman's face and the back of his head. Did he bother to document or photograph or verify that these were actual injuries (as opposed to Martin's blood, splashed on him)? Or is there in fact no evidence Zimmerman was actually injured?

That's also a great question. Also, were there powder burns on Martin's body?

I assume the coroner is doing a full report?

 

[Tricky]

Yes, it's unlikely. But we have access to only a fraction of the information available. For example, we don't know how far away from Zimmerman's truck the shooting occurred, and whether or not Martin ran after being shot and if so how far. We also don't know the exact timeline of the 911 calls.

Yes, there's lots of things we don't know, and you're probably correct that a clever lawyer will get Zimmerman off the hook here. But thank you for admitting it's unlikely that Zimmerman's scenario is true. I realize that has no weight in court, but I think most people should be outraged by this "likely" miscarriage of justice, if it happens. I hope you are.