Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[TheL8Elvis]

Where I live (excepting the presence of the firearm, obviously), Zimmerman's behaviour even before any words were spoken may well constitute a crime.

So, maybe, maybe not ? And that's in the UK, not the US ?

AFAIK, GZ did nothing illegal in following TM.

Also at this point in the call:

Zimmerman: Actually could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at?
Dispatcher: Okay, yeah that's no problem.

Shouldn't the dispatcher again say 'no, stray put' or 'meet them at the mailbox' or something other than 'okay' ?

 

[Caper]

If you were judge and jury and you could acquit this guy now or send him to prison what would you do?

Just on going by what I know now. 5 years in prison..... maybe out earlier on good behavior.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Yeah, every time someone in this thread makes a "following a perp" analogy, be it a bank robber, or a hit-and-run; they forget (or forget to add) that M was not a perp. So that analogy doesn't count at all. ...and as for being suspicious, I don't even buy that. You have to do more than "not be known to Z" to be suspicious.



What I find interesting, and I missed it when I listened to it days ago, is that Z agreed to not follow M.

Z says "okay" to "we don't need you to [follow him]".

OKAY can be a simple acknowledgement, as in 'okay, I understand you don't need me to follow him'

But i think GZ made it clear to the dispatcher he was going to follow, or else why would he not be in the same location ?

Zimmerman: Actually could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at?
Dispatcher: Okay, yeah that's no problem.

 

[LTC8K6]

From your link:

"He was not suspended for something dealing with violence or anything like that. It wasn't a crime he committed, but he was in an unauthorized area (on school property)," Martin said, declining to offer more details.

I think since this came from the father, it is the one to go with, rather than a bus driver or tardiness.

That's why I would question it, actually. Besides, it doesn't make any sense.

Was the unauthorized area a school bus, perhaps?

If his suspension isn't a reflection of his character at the time, they why can't we know what it was about?

As another poster pointed out, if Zimmerman's character is a factor, then so is Martin's.

 

[LTC8K6]

If you were judge and jury and you could acquit this guy now or send him to prison what would you do?

Just on going by what I know now. 5 years in prison..... maybe out earlier on good behavior.

I think that's right. Manslaughter of some sort.

He'll probably be killed in prison anyway.

 

[triforcharity]

Internet forensic experts rock!

Yepo! I mean, how logical would it be that if someone was on top of you, and you shot them dead, that would cause blood to fall out of their body and onto you.

Imagine that.

 

[crimresearch]

Clearly, Zimmerman's justification defense will have to argue an attack under subsection (3).

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

There are no claims that seem to meet subsections (1) and (4) requirements of forced entry into a dwelling of vehicle.

Zimmerman's lawyer says it doesn't fall under the 'stand your ground ' part that the media is hyping, but just under self defense 'prevent death or GBH'.

Oh well, what could he possibly know compared to the media?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That's why I would question it, actually. Besides, it doesn't make any sense.

Was the unauthorized area a school bus, perhaps?

I'm not sure how to interpret it. I have no doubt it was a carefully worded statement, worded with the intention to be true, but vague. Potentially misleading.

It could be he was in front of that line by the bus driver you aren't supposed to cross when the bus is moving. Perhaps because he was having ...words... with the bus driver.

I'm just saying I believe the fathers statement over the other two theories about the suspension. Just like I believe GZ attorney/consultant/friend about the broken nose. These are things that are going to come up in any court case, and if they turn out to be lies, I would think it would discredit or be unhelpful to either party, so I tend to believe that they are careful to be truthful, if non-specific, at this juncture.

If his suspension isn't a reflection of his character at the time, they why can't we know what it was about?

As another poster pointed out, if Zimmerman's character is a factor, then so is Martin's.

It may not be as relevant in the case of self defense - but it sure as hell is relevant in the court of public opinion.

I think we are starting to see why all the pictures initially used were from three years ago. It paints a much 'safer' and more 'innocent' picture of TM.

 

[crimresearch]

If he does it in a manner that suggests that he is going to harm you, you can kill him, in Florida..

Pure fantasy. 'Death or great bodily harm' is the law of the land, as cited before.

I asked you for the legal citation last time you made this sort of exaggerated claim and you ran away.

Where does the law say that you can legally shoot someone just for punching you?

 

[Information Analyst]

So, maybe, maybe not ? And that's in the UK, not the US ?

You asked if Zimmerman following Martin as he did was illegal, and the answer obviously is that in some places it may well be. I think it could fit the definition of common assault in the England & Wales, i.e. that he "intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate unlawful violence." M'learned friend Anglolawyer may be able to offer an opinion on this.

 

[Ian]

Quote from TheL8Elvis:

Zimmerman: Actually could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at?
Dispatcher: Okay, yeah that's no problem.

This certainly does not indicated to the dispatcher that GZ intended to follow. It was very common when someone called me at 911 that the caller wanted to change his or her location with no intent of following a subject. Sometimes they just wanted to move to a well-lit area so the officer could clearly see them, while a subject would be less likely to attack a visible complainant. Sometimes they wanted to move to the entrance of a gated community, which is what GZ and Martin were in, so the officer could find them more quickly. Sometimes they just wanted to move to a place that was well populated so they would feel safer. There are plenty of reasons why a complainant would change location.

 

[crimresearch]

But Martin did run, and Zimmerman then either followed him directly, or cut him off ahead. In either scenario, Martin getting his question in first doesn't equate with him "confronting" Zimmerman, because Zimmerman had already initated a non-verbal confrontation. FWIW, I'm pretty certain that Zimmerman's actions upto that point would contitute a crime (common assault) in themselves.

No, staring and following isn't assault.

 

[triforcharity]

I know, a lot of people here are operating on raw emotion rather than using critical thinking. The only side I'm on is what the facts and evidence leads to. I'm not emotionally vested in either side. Emotions cloud rational thinking.

This is still a critical thinking forum, if you make a claim you should support it with facts and evidence. That seems to have gone out the window in this thread, and speculation reigns here.

Zimmerman may be guilty, he may not be. But those who presume to know at this point, with what little information we have, are not thinking rationally.

So, because we're discussing on a skeptics' forum, we're not allowed to speculate?

Get over yourself WildCat. 95% of what we've discussed in the last 10 pages of this thread is speculation, since nobody here was there, and the police are being very ho-hum.

Does that mean anything? Nope. We're discussing our views and opinions, and discussing different scenarios that could fit the evidence.

We're not a court of law, and as such, we're allowed to ******* speculate all we damn well please. So get over your little "I only deal in facts blah blah" bull ****. It's old.

 

[crimresearch]

Yepo! I mean, how logical would it be that if someone was on top of you, and you shot them dead, that would cause blood to fall out of their body and onto you.

Imagine that.

And the pristine bullet would then float to a nearby rooftop.

 

[Information Analyst]

No, staring and following isn't assault.

My error - the "where I live" that was in my head didn't end up on the end of that sentence.

 

[triforcharity]

The use of Trayvon's death is disgusting.

And I disagree. I know that SPD has a history of being lazy in their investigations. We need to get to the bottom of it.

Also, if the SYG law is written poorly, then it SHOULD be changed, so we don't have another teenager dead for no apparent reason.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Quote from TheL8Elvis:



This certainly does not indicated to the dispatcher that GZ intended to follow. It was very common when someone called me at 911 that the caller wanted to change his or her location with no intent of following a subject. Sometimes they just wanted to move to a well-lit area so the officer could clearly see them, while a subject would be less likely to attack a visible complainant. Sometimes they wanted to move to the entrance of a gated community, which is what GZ and Martin were in, so the officer could find them more quickly. Sometimes they just wanted to move to a place that was well populated so they would feel safer. There are plenty of reasons why a complainant would change location.

In the context of this call, and GZ being no stranger to 911 calls or the call takers, I think none of those are reasons you mentioned are relevant.

They are all valid reasons, I 'll grant - but in context I think the conclusion is GZ is going to continue to keep an eye on the victim. Plenty of posters are using his words to draw conclusions about his actions, so if that's a valid argument, then let's understand the 911 call taker could draw obvious conclusions from his words as well.

 

[Ian]

Quote from TheL8Elvis:

Plenty of posters are using his words to draw conclusions about his actions, so if that's a valid argument, then let's understand the 911 call taker could draw obvious conclusions from his words as well.

Let's not. That would be jumping to conclusions. Just because someone is a "frequent flyer" does not allow the call-taker to make an assumption like that. I spent enough years answering 911 calls to know better than that.

 

[Cylinder]

Zimmerman's lawyer says it doesn't fall under the 'stand your ground ' part that the media is hyping, but just under self defense 'prevent death or GBH'.

Apparently that has changed or wasreported incorrectly.

The attorney counseling George Zimmerman, who shot unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin as he was walking home from the store with a bag of Skittles, says if charges are filed, Zimmerman will argue that he acted in self-defense and that Florida's stand-your-ground law applies...

[Florida attorney Craig]Sonner said the so-called stand-your-ground law, under which a person who feels threatened is not required to retreat and can "meet force with force" if attacked, will be applicable in the case.

 

[WildCat]

During/after still isn't "the whole thing" by any stretch of the imagination. Having only part of the story can be deceptive.

The point is that "John" was in a position to see who was screaming for help, and no one else, including Cutcher, was in such a position.

Am I missing some cultural difference where in America asking someone, "why are you following me?" are classed as threatening words? Martin realised someone in a startionary truck was staring at him for what to him (Martin) would have seemed like no good reason. When he ran off a short distance, the mystery assailant got out of his vehicle and followed him. I'd say Martin was perfectly within his rights to ask Zimmerman why he was following him. Above everything, we can't lose sight of the fact that Martin was doing nothing wrong, so it is perfectly understandable that Zimmerman's behaviour caused him concern/fear.

No, it's not threatening. Neither is "what are you doing here". I've been asked the latter many times as a white person who worked primarily in black neighborhoods, especially when I was in my late teens and early 20s. By cops who assumed I was there looking for drugs or lost, and by residents (including obvious gangbangers) who wondered the same or thought I was an undercover cop. I never took such inquiries as threatening, and certainly never started swinging at someone for asking.

We don't know what happened immediately after those words were exchanged, but know shortly after they were fighting on the ground.