17 year old kid shot dead by Neighborhood Watch "Captain"

[CarmelHP]

Where did you find he was smoking on the way to the store? All I read was he had it in his system. That's in your system for 30 days.

See here.

 

[hornadylnl]

Where did you find he was smoking on the way to the store? All I read was he had it in his system. That's in your system for 30 days. There is no definate way to tell when you last smoked...?

The same crystal ball most of the other "facts" came from.

 

[hornadylnl]

Well so far, 56 out of 100 INGOers have smoked pot. That's some really damning evidence against Martin.

 

[Kutnupe14]

See here.

Uh, I'm kinda not seeing where that is indicated.

 

[Hotdoger]

Well so far, 56 out of 100 INGOers have smoked pot. That's some really damning evidence against Martin.

 

[hornadylnl]

There are some trying to insinuate that Martin being a pot smoker is proof that he was a thug. When INGOers do it, it's a youthful mistake.

 

[Im4the2nd]

I also agree someones son did not come home that night. I'll have a few disagree with me however if you are armed find a way out of trouble let the cops do their job. In the name of self defense someone (Martin) is dead. This did not have to happen. A young Black man walking and challenged he responded with anger ....why did this have to happen

 

[Hotdoger]

There are some trying to insinuate that Martin being a pot smoker is proof that he was a thug. When INGOers do it, it's a youthful mistake.

It is one piece of the modern day thug culture.

 

[jamil]

The same crystal ball most of the other "facts" came from.

So the evidence the prosecution handed over to the defense was from a crystal ball?

There are some trying to insinuate that Martin being a pot smoker is proof that he was a thug. When INGOers do it, it's a youthful mistake.

I took it that they were trying to insinuate that Martin being a pot smoker tends to support Z's statement that the "suspicious person" looked like he was on something. They insinuated that the latest photos and his dubious handle is proof that he was a thug. Acting like a thug tends to make people think you're a thug.

 

[Hotdoger]

I also agree someones son did not come home that night. I'll have a few disagree with me however if you are armed find a way out of trouble let the cops do their job. In the name of self defense someone (Martin) is dead. This did not have to happen. A young Black man walking and challenged he responded with anger ....why did this have to happen

Again, the evidence is Martian challenged Zimmerman.

 

[jamil]

I also agree someones son did not come home that night. I'll have a few disagree with me however if you are armed find a way out of trouble let the cops do their job. In the name of self defense someone (Martin) is dead. This did not have to happen. A young Black man walking and challenged he responded with anger ....why did this have to happen

Two people made poor decisions. Z's poor decision was getting out of the truck. But from all the evidence we know, that in itself didn't cause the shooting. The fight is what directly caused the shooting. Whomever started the fight was directly responsible for the shooting. Looks like that was Martin.

 

[churchmouse]

Well so far, 56 out of 100 INGOers have smoked pot. That's some really damning evidence against Martin.

That was your scientific study. I smoked in the early 70's. It is posted on your thread. Jeesh, it never made me want to pumil anyone. I was pretty lovey when under the influence. It just go's to the issue that he was not the smiling teddy bear the MSM is portraying him to be, that's all, nothing more. It is part of the youth thug culture he put out on his interwebs posts. Man, you are stretching it now. I am formulating my opinions from real life experience's and the evidence now being released about this madness.
Keep digging my boy, diligence and steadfast resistance will eventually sway someone.

Edit......As with Romney, mine was youthful sillyness. 40 years ago hot dog....done and gone. I did not run for the presidency because of this................

 

[hornadylnl]

This link is mobile so I don't know if it will work for you. It states that he didn't have enough in his system to affect him.

Documents shed new light on Trayvon Martin killing

Another not so flattering article on Z.

 

[hornadylnl]

Here's your chance to help out a fellow gun owner in need.

George Zimmerman’s Defense Fundraising Slows In Trayvon Martin Case | TPMMuckraker

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

Yes, he did.

Here's the problem.

Zimmerman stopped trying to follow the kid (while he was on the phone with the police, mind you) and began returning to his truck. This is all on the police audio. You have listened to that, right? Trayvon then went back and approached Zimmerman. Not only did Trayvon initiate contact but he physically attacked Zimmerman.

In this case Z is innocent. Trayvon chose poorly.

Oh really? Quote from the Detroit Free Press, including one from the lead investigator.

Other evidence supports the contention of Martin's parents, that Zimmerman was the aggressor.


The investigator who called for Zimmerman's arrest, Christopher Serino, told prosecutors that the fight could have been avoided if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement. He said Zimmerman, after leaving his vehicle, could have identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and talked to him instead of confronting him. The report was written on March 13, nearly a month before Zimmerman's eventual arrest.


He said there is no evidence Martin was involved in any criminal activity.


Autopsy: Trayvon Martin tested positive for marijuana; George Zimmerman shot him in heart at close range | Detroit Free Press | freep.com



Like I said in my previous post, I dont think Murder will stick but it could have all been avoided if he had listened to police on the phone and stayed put.

 

[jamil]

Oh really? Quote from the Detroit Free Press, including one from the lead investigator.

Other evidence supports the contention of Martin's parents, that Zimmerman was the aggressor.

What other evidence?

The investigator who called for Zimmerman's arrest, Christopher Serino, told prosecutors that the fight could have been avoided if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement. He said Zimmerman, after leaving his vehicle, could have identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and talked to him instead of confronting him. The report was written on March 13, nearly a month before Zimmerman's eventual arrest.

It doesn't surprise me that one police officer involved thinks like Kutnupe14. Yes, Zimmerman should have done things differently. But where is the evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's statement that Martin confronted him on his way back to his vehicle.

Like I said in my previous post, I dont think Murder will stick but it could have all been avoided if he had listened to police on the phone and stayed put.

I don't recall from the 911 recording that police told him to stay put. After the dispatcher asked if he was following, he told Z they didn't need him to do that. Z said okay. A minute later Martin was dead not all that far from Z's truck. That seems to support Z's story.

The media tried to paint innocence all over the face of Martin to make it seem impossible that he was capable of such an assault that would make Z afraid for his life. Heck, I bought that narrative for at least a few days. But as the narrative started falling apart, as the facts started coming out exposing the fabrication by the media, we found neither Martin nor Zimmerman actually fit that initial narrative.

The biggest point is, given all that, why shouldn't we believe that Martin had a very large part in his own death because of his assault on Zimmerman?

 

[Kutnupe14]

The more and more I think about this, the more I think that this just may be a "Stand Your Ground" case, but in reference to Martin.
I'm thinking that the prosecution will seek to illustrate, that Martin, when weighing the totality of the circumstances, had more right to "Stand his Ground," than Zimmerman.

I think they would state:
-Nothing illegal had been indicated, by Zimmerman, concerning Martin's actions
-No other "concerned citizen" called in on Martin
-Zimmerman did not indicate that he was any danger by remaining in his vehicle
-Upon noticing Zimmerman, Martin attempted to remove himself from his presence
-Zimmerman escalated the situation, by exiting his car
-Zimmerman further escalated the situation by following Martin
-Martin may or may not have been aware of Zimmerman's weapon which would escalate the situation even further
-Martin calls his girlfriend and advises her that he "lost" Zimmerman (an indication that he was attempting to avoid contact)
-Martin's girlfriend (if you choose to believe her), states that Martin is confronted by Zimmerman, and Martin asks "why are you following me."
-At that point an altercation ensues, who started it we don't know.

HOWEVER, would a reasonable person (if the above has merit) be in fear for their safety? Would a 17 year old kid regardless of height/weight, devoid of much in the area of life experience, be inclined to think that he may be potentially harmed? Would one believe that physical contact, by Zimmerman, is imminent? At that point is Martin "Standing his Ground"?
Who knows, but that is exactly how I'd paint the picture, and IANAL, so my stick figures will give way to a much more capable attorney's Da Vinci.

It's not a matter of what you can actually prove, more than what you can convince.


One interesting thing about Florida's law, is that there is caveat which applies to the aggressor (which, of course I'm sure Zimmerman will be painted as being by the prosecution).


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.
Now, the converse of this, the defense would have to paint Martin as intentionally seeking to harm Zimmerman under Florida's Aggravated Battery statue. I believe that will be extremely difficult given that Martin, using Zimmerman's own words was "running away."

So how is a jury going to look upon that statement? This was obviously a potentially dangerous situation. Did Martin recognize this while Zimmerman did not? Martin "appears" to try to remove himself from situation, and Zimmerman "appears" to want to re-insert himself back into it.

If Martin did attack Zimmerman, then the defense is going to have to explain "why." I think that's a big problem. "Why" would Martin attack Zimmerman? Did he wish to rob him? Did he want some "street cred"? Was he "high" on the violent drug marijuana? OR, was he in fear of a stranger who he believed was stalking him? What is Martin's motive in attacking Zimmerman? And if Zimmerman was in his vehicle when Martin ran away, how could Martin have the foresight to determine that Zimmerman would exit his vehicle so that he could be attacked?

And what of the notion that Zimmerman exited his vehicle to get a better address so he could inform the police of a better location via and address number? If Zimmerman was the Watch Captain, doesn't it make sense that he would already have a general, in not perfect idea of the layout of a small residential area such as his own? And how exact does being in the back of the homes accomplish that from the back of a residence? I guess it's possible the homes were numbered on the rear, but I have never seen homes that weren't numbered from the front. I think it would be difficult to persuade a jury that Zimmerman was looking for addresses, at the rear of homes, rather than attempting to follow Martin.


I scoured the site for similar threads involving confrontations. None of these quotes were in reference to Martin Zimmerman (and the names have been removed to protect the innocent)

Stay in vehicle and try to get away from the immediate risk. Getting out of vehicle is asking for trouble.

Maybe, but it's a precarious situation either way. Avoidance is always better than shooting.

I'm not sure how you can engage and escalate and then claim self-defense.

Avoidance is always the best plan of action.

I thought so many people need to learn what this man learned stay back and call for assistance. You do not know what is going on and you could incite things further or get caught in the cross hairs. Yes there are times when we are called to action but that usually is when we didn't put ourselves into it or we had no choice out of it.

I think Zimmerman has serious uphill battle. No one knows who started the physical portion of the confrontation (at least nothing credible has been put out). But we do know that Martin was unarmed, Zimmerman was armed, Martin expressed his concern to a 3rd party, Zimmerman exited his vehicle against the wishes of a dispatcher (not a legal order), Zimmerman made some comment that he probably should have kept to himself, and that Martin ended up dead. If the prosecuting attorney is as good as people say, Zimmerman is in trouble. I've seen a number of things that would not allow me to, personally, convict based on the charges (though I fully believe that Zimmerman's poor actions led directly to Martin's death), but again, IANAL, and how it's portrayed by a professional could very likely change a bunch of opinions on a jury (including my own).


(waits for the snide remarks)

 

[CarmelHP]

From the above, I suspect that as well as being no forensics expert, Kutnupe14 is no legal expert either.

 

[Kutnupe14]

From the above, I suspect that as well as being no forensics expert, Kutnupe14 is no legal expert either.

Hence the IANAL
(1)

 

[jamil]

"Zimmerman exited his vehicle against the wishes of a dispatcher"

I'm sure the dispatcher wished Z had not exited his vehicle. EVERYONE except Al Sharpton wishes that. But can you demonstrate from the known facts exactly what dispatcher's statement Z disregarded.