Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[RandFan]

I have already stated I believe they appear to have done a poor job on the investigation.

When police arrived less than two minutes later, Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose, had a swollen lip and had bloody lacerations to the back of his head.

Is it plausiblee that the inspection of GZ's wounds at the scene was superficial and exaggerated to justify their preliminary conclusions?

 

[KatieG]

I'm not really sure I know how to answer this ...

Because, from what we know so far, the evidence appears to corroborate Zimmermans story ?

I'm not sure I understand why it's so hard to believe a 17 year teenager old would get tired of a short fat guy following him, and turn around and kick his ass ?
This doesn't seem far-fetched to me.

If I accept this at face value, I must ask why getting your ass kicked by someone is a death penalty offense?

 

[WildCat]

I'm not sure I understand why it's so hard to believe a 17 year teenager old would get tired of a short fat guy following him, and turn around and kick his ass ?
This doesn't seem far-fetched to me.

Apparently Zimmerman has lost a lot of weight over the years. Acording to his friend Oliver he actually weighs just 170 now.

 

[WildCat]

If I accept this at face value, I must ask why getting your ass kicked by someone a death penalty offense?

This is the issue now, yes. Whether what transpired in the fight warranted the shooting.

I'm done arguing with people who are claiming all the evidence is faked, there wasn't a fight, Zimmerman tried to detain Martin, etc etc. I can do that over in Conspiracy Theories.

 

[Finn McR]

It would seem that either this part of Florida law is no longer in force or that the Sanford Police disregarded it: (Title XLVI, Chapter 776)

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

(bolding mine) We might see how this plays out, but, unlike Dancing David's apparent support of the claim of Dan O. that forensic evidence is being withheld, and more is to come... without the national backlash against this situation, [/B] nothing would have been investigated further[/B]. There would be no issue of "forensic" evidence. The cops on scene appear to have decided that this was a cool situation, one more dead thug, let's not investigate as a violation of 776.041.

I will repeat, I am all for concealed carry rights and have done so myself. However, I will not be visiting Florida as long as their chapter 776 provisions are used as a license to murder. It appears that all you need to do is be able to convince the cops when you go on the attack, decide you are outmatched, and shoot to kill that you were afraid of "great bodily harm". Then they will not even try to uphold their own state laws. I would hope that others would boycott the state as well. Recall, from 911 tapes, from admission of the shooter, the shooter was not just going about his business. He followed (even "stalked" since he was in a vehicle and the victim on foot) the victim. How the Sanford Police don't even seem to suspect that this was a provocation (Title XLVI chapter 776.041 (2)) is mind-boggling.

 

[crimresearch]

If I accept this at face value, I must ask why getting your ass kicked by someone a death penalty offense?

Good question (And very close to one asked by the Supreme Court in the past). Only one good answer, legally.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

My bolding:

It would seem that either this part of Florida law is no longer in force or that the Sanford Police disregarded it: (Title XLVI, Chapter 776)

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
<snip>
(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself,  unless:
(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;

I think maybe part of that "unless" might have been essentially removed by the SYG law. (I'm not sure though. It seems to contradict this anyway.) I think perhaps the defense is available if the person reasonably believes he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and he need not exhaust all chance of escape or any other alternative to causing death or great bodily harm to the assailant.

[ETA: If I'm wrong, and this section stands, then this is indeed probably where the prosecutor will make her case. If you provoked the attack, then you can't use the SYG defense.]

The cops on scene appear to have decided that this was a cool situation, one more dead thug, let's not investigate as a violation of 776.041.

The cops on the scene took him into custody on suspicion of "negligent homicide/manslaughter/unnecessary killing to prevent an unlawful act" and turned him over to investigators at the police station. That was the end of their involvement. I find no fault with them.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

If I accept this at face value, I must ask why getting your ass kicked by someone a death penalty offense?

It shouldn't be. This whole situation is a tragedy. If my 'defense' of GZ led you to believe that I thought TM deserved getting killed, that is not the case.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin Lakes Shooting Initial Report.pdf

Here it is.

"bleeding from the nose and the back of the head"

That does not say wounds observed. I'm not saying there were no wounds, I'm just saying that observation is not of "wound" it is an observation of blood. One scenario is that GZ tried to detain TM and TM fought back. Another possibility is that the blood was TM's.

There is still nothing consistent with GZ returning to his SUV when attacked.

It's worth noting the addresses the police cite as the crime scene are about 75 feet along the sidewalk from where the sidewalk tees off to the street. Still no evidence GZ wouldn't have been able to see TM at that location. If GZ was returning to his vehicle where would TM have been when GZ turned around?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In this case:...-the available evidence seemed to support that claim

That is in question and certainly wasn't unanimous.

-witness accounts seemed to support that claim

One witness but not all the witnesses.

-they did not feel that an arrest at the time was warranted due to it 'looking' like self defense

Again, not unanimous.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

"bleeding from the nose and the back of the head"

That does not say wounds observed. I'm not saying there were no wounds, I'm just saying that observation is not of "wound" it is an observation of blood.

OK, he didn't say he saw a "wound", but he also didn't simply observe "blood".

He observed "bleeding". ("bleeding from" specific places). I'd understand a nosebleed not necessarily being a wound, but bleeding from the back of the head sounds to me as if it requires a wound.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

-they did not feel that an arrest at the time was warranted due to it 'looking' like self defense

They did take him into custody. They did not get his statement at the scene. The cops on the scene made no judgement about whether or not there was self-defense. They disarmed him, cuffed him, and took him to the station and turned him over to "investigations".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There is no mention of a holster being taken into evidence with the handgun. Probably safe to assume that it was not present, as this would be relevant in determining ownership of the weapon.

It sounds kind of strange that someone like Z would not have a holster for it. "Mexican carry" is a good way to get your danglies blown off and really not a bit comfortable when you are driving.

This is, thus, more consistant with his having had the weapon in the glove compartment or some other location in the vehicle, and his having grabbed it when he dismounted.

The police report says the gun was in a holster in GZ's waistband when they arrived.

That suggests it was not on a belt but the holster was loose and the gun was in the holster.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Read it again. They took the gun and holster. It was a waistband holster.

I defer to "waistband holster" being a specific kind of holster.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

OK, he didn't say he saw a "wound", but he also didn't simply observe "blood".

He observed "bleeding". ("bleeding from" specific places). I'd understand a nosebleed not necessarily being a wound, but bleeding from the back of the head sounds to me as if it requires a wound.

But we are trying to go by the facts, and seeing bleeding does not mean seeing a wound. It could be either, seeing a wound or just blood.

What concerns me about the police report is why wouldn't any competent cop carefully describe the wounds found on a suspect in a case like this? Surely the police would know that wounds on the shooter were critical pieces of evidence to observe and record. I would think photographic images of those wounds were called for.

So, are these just incompetent police or did they assume the shooting was self defense and not bother with a proper investigation? The latter scenario makes no sense to me. Incompetence makes the most sense.

 

[Finn McR]

My bolding:

I think maybe part of that "unless" might have been essentially removed by the SYG law. (I'm not sure though. It seems to contradict this anyway.) I think perhaps the defense is available if the person reasonably believes he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and he need not exhaust all chance of escape or any other alternative to causing death or great bodily harm to the assailant.

[ETA: If I'm wrong, and this section stands, then this is indeed probably where the prosecutor will make her case. If you provoked the attack, then you can't use the SYG defense.]



The cops on the scene took him into custody on suspicion of "negligent homicide/manslaughter/unnecessary killing to prevent an unlawful act" and turned him over to investigators at the police station. That was the end of their involvement. I find no fault with them.

I suppose you don't need to distrust those law officers, however, the so-called "stand your ground" law is title XLVI chapter 776.013, easy enough for you to check yourself, since I gave you a starting point.

 

[LTC8K6]

So it's Martin's fault he was shot.

If you say so.

Fortunately the police report, issued right after the investigation, says it's Zimmerman's fault, and recommends a serious charge for Zimmerman.

Why is it so much trouble for JREF members to keep things in context and follow the thread?

How in the world I ever posted anything that would justify that response, is beyond me.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

If it's been established that she was on the phone with Trayvon when she said she was, her statements are as credible as those of the other third-party witnesses. Since her account ends when the fight begins, and none of the other accounts begin until after the fight is already in progress, her testimony does not conflict with anything any other witnesses reported.

I hope from our exchanges you understand I was making a point to SG, and I that have accepted the GF statements at face value,more or less.

On the other hand, a few of the after-the-fight-started witnesses' accounts conflict.

Are you referring to the 911 callers ? I'm not aware of any major conflicts in their stories.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

GW was a "criminal justice major" according to his friend right now on Lawrence O'Donnell. I had heard he'd applied to be a police officer but I hadn't heard this other claim yet.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So which is it? It isn't far fetched to you that Zimmerman was following Martin, prompting Martin to "turn around and kick his ass", and then in the next post you can't imagine how any ass-kicking could take place unless Martin followed Zimmerman and took him from behind?

Please don't conflate my two points.

The first point was that TM is a teenager. They often have poor judgment and self control. I would not find it in any way remarkable if TM decided to turn around and have a fight with GZ for following him. Or as I said, kick his ass. Perhaps I should have been more accurate and said 'Try to kick his ass'.

The second point is my irritation with the people who want it both ways.
They want TM perceived as a little boy, only 140 pounds who would never stand a chance against a 270 pound GZ. They also say it is not reasonable that TM attacked GZ from behind.
So my question is how did this little boy then kick GZ ass in that scenario ?

Does that clear up my two statements ?

I have no problem with the idea that TM could kick GZ ass either by surprising him, or not. That's just my opinion.