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

[Expat]

Many in this thread throw things about as "proven" or "fact" when they are far from proven as facts. These things may be possible, they may even be likely or probable, but they are far from proven/certain/factual.

As someone uninvolved in the discussion, I just get the impression that you guys are coming at this from two different directions. When we common layman read some of this stuff (supposed school reports, police reports, stories from supposed witnesses, etc.), we regard it is as fact (especially if it supports the narrative we believe). For you and other lawyers, nothing is a fact unless adjudicated as such. At least that is the impression I have.

 

[Fargo]

As someone uninvolved in the discussion, I just get the impression that you guys are coming at this from two different directions. When we common layman read some of this stuff (supposed school reports, police reports, stories from supposed witnesses, etc.), we regard it is as fact (especially if it supports the narrative we believe). For you and other lawyers, nothing is a fact unless adjudicated as such. At least that is the impression I have.

To me it doesn't have to be adjudicated as such, but it does have to have a substantial basis for me to conclude it is truly reliable.

In this case, all we know is what both sides are feeding the MSM further clouded by what the MSM is filterning/highlighting/obscuring.

As such, I find it hard to believe that ANYONE here KNOWS with any great deal of certainty what happened. After all, most everything we "know" has come third hand through the inherently unreliable conduit of the media.

With that in mind, I don't see how people have this near-religious belief that T was a thug, or that Z's story is gospel, or much of anything.

My belief is that if the evidence is confined to what is currently public, I don't think the prosecution can make its case and I don't see the basis for proceeding on it. If there is additional evidence, and while doubtful there certainly could be, I could be completely wrong.

I also believe that no one but Z truly knows what happened after he followed T off into the dusk and I also would guess that he has some memory loss/lapses as commonly result in this sort of high-stress violent encounter. Since he is a very interested witness in this regard, I view his story through the lens of that caveat.

It is also my personal OPINION that taking everything Z says as true, he was still an idiot for acting as he did and he put himself in a very foolish position where if T had avoided getting shot and had killed Z he probably would have had a facially perfectly valid self-defense/stand your ground; indeed probably a stronger on than Z has.

It is my speculative OPINION that Z was a soft man who decided he was hard after he got a gun and became "watchman" and who got WAY out of his depth and put himself in a very perilous situation without adequate cause. This has resulted, though certainly not entirely through his own fault, with him facing a pretty severe legal position. IMO he is very lucky he was not legally killed.

Then again, I don't claim any of that to be fact and concede I could be completely wrong.

Best,

Joe

 

[DRob]

Amen

As someone uninvolved in the discussion, I just get the impression that you guys are coming at this from two different directions. When we common layman read some of this stuff (supposed school reports, police reports, stories from supposed witnesses, etc.), we regard it is as fact (especially if it supports the narrative we believe). For you and other lawyers, nothing is a fact unless adjudicated as such. At least that is the impression I have.

I agree Expat. In this internet world where we live, not only does posting on the 'net "prove" something but also provides the opportunity to not only repeat these "facts' but to embellish them with personal opinion. I find it remarkable that people will blast the news media and particularly "the government" as totally inaccurate and corrupt right up to the point where they agree with what is said. Then it's the gospel. A one way street that has to be their way is easier than rational thought.

 

[mrjarrell]

It is my speculative OPINION that Z was a soft man who decided he was hard after he got a gun and became "watchman" and who got WAY out of his depth and put himself in a very perilous situation without adequate cause. This has resulted, though certainly not entirely through his own fault, with him facing a pretty severe legal position. IMO he is very lucky he was not legally killed.

^^This. Z put himself in the situation and, realistically the one doing the "stand your ground" was T. I do not think this case is going to go the way many people and Z hope it will.

 

[griffin]

I find it hard to believe that ANYONE here KNOWS with any great deal of certainty what happened. I don't see how people have this near-religious belief that Z's story is gospel

Well, Zimmerman passed a voice stress test and a polygraph test. He was videotaped the next morning doing an on-site walk-through of the events with the police. This was after being with the police all night long being interrogated.

Both he and Trayvon have wounds consistent with his story. The timeline matches and the movements of each match his story and have been corroborated on a map and in the field.

He has been grilled about his story over and over and over again by the police. Witnesses that he had no way of knowing about gave statements. Not once did his story change or conflict with any witness testimony. All of the 911 calls corroborate his story. Every single one. Immediately after the shooting when he was sitting in the back of the police car he kept repeating, "I was yelling for help, why did nobody help me?" or something to that effect. This was captured on witness 911 audio.

Either he's telling the truth or he's the smartest person the Sanford Police and the State of Florida has ever come across.

Z was a soft man who decided he was hard after he got a gun

You know why he had a gun, don't you? The Sanford Police recommended he buy it. He didn't just decide to by a neighborhood watchman and buy a gun to be a big man. He never used to own one or wear it until the police suggested it.

He also basically followed the SPD NW guidelines that said to call in suspicious behavior and report on the locations. It was only after Trayvon ran that Zimmerman got out and followed so he could keep reporting on Trayvon's location for the cop who was supposed to be dispatched to the subdivision.

 

[NathanJefferson]

Somewhere over at market-ticker.org the host gives a great explanation of why the vast majority of what everyone is talking about doesn't matter.

It all boils down to; was T on top of Z committing felonious assault to which defending yourself with deadly force would be legal.

Z following T? doesn't matter. Even T attacking/punching doesn't matter; as that wouldn't be justification for deadly force.

If T was on top of Z bouncing his head off the ground, pummeling his face and preventing Z from fleeing, which all the evidence I've seen corroborates, it would be a clean self defense. Everything else is posturing... Or am I really missing something?

 

[Fargo]

Well, Zimmerman passed a voice stress test and a polygraph test. He was videotaped the next morning doing an on-site walk-through of the events with the police. This was after being with the police all night long being interrogated.

Both he and Trayvon have wounds consistent with his story. The timeline matches and the movements of each match his story and have been corroborated on a map and in the field.

He has been grilled about his story over and over and over again by the police. Witnesses that he had no way of knowing about gave statements. Not once did his story change or conflict with any witness testimony. All of the 911 calls corroborate his story. Every single one. Immediately after the shooting when he was sitting in the back of the police car he kept repeating, "I was yelling for help, why did nobody help me?" or something to that effect. This was captured on witness 911 audio.

Either he's telling the truth or he's the smartest person the Sanford Police and the State of Florida has ever come across.

For the moment, lets presume all the circumstances you list above are gospel truth and there is nothing beyond that list that contradicts it. What degree of certainty do you believe that PROVES his story to?

I've asked this same question going on about 5 or 6 times but I am still yet to get an answer.

I once again grant you possible and even probable. However, I personally still hold you far far away from proven gospel.

You know why he had a gun, don't you? The Sanford Police recommended he buy it. He didn't just decide to by a neighborhood watchman and buy a gun to be a big man. He never used to own one or wear it until the police suggested it.

He also basically followed the SPD NW guidelines that said to call in suspicious behavior and report on the locations. It was only after Trayvon ran that Zimmerman got out and followed so he could keep reporting on Trayvon's location for the cop who was supposed to be dispatched to the subdivision.

Yes, I've read everything you said above. It still does nothing to change my OPINION you quoted because it in no way contradicts or contravenes it.

Joe

 

[Kutnupe14]

And I rest my case.
Argue this every way you wish......I would have busted "T" in this situation.

In a situation where you followed him and initiated aggressive physical contact? So essentially, are you saying that you can start a fight, and then employ deadly force when you start to lose????

After all, if you're the only one left alive, who can dispute your "facts" concerning the encounter?

 

[jbombelli]

In a situation where you followed him and initiated aggressive physical contact? So essentially, are you saying that you can start a fight, and then employ deadly force when you start to lose????

After all, if you're the only one left alive, who can dispute your "facts" concerning the encounter?

Who says Z "initiated aggressive physical contact"? Everything I have read on this, except for the shrieking harpies who weren't there and just want Z to die, says otherwise.

If nobody can dispute it, who the **** are YOU to dispute it? You weren't there either.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Somewhere over at market-ticker.org the host gives a great explanation of why the vast majority of what everyone is talking about doesn't matter.

It all boils down to; was T on top of Z committing felonious assault to which defending yourself with deadly force would be legal.

Z following T? doesn't matter. Even T attacking/punching doesn't matter; as that wouldn't be justification for deadly force.

If T was on top of Z bouncing his head off the ground, pummeling his face and preventing Z from fleeing, which all the evidence I've seen corroborates, it would be a clean self defense. Everything else is posturing... Or am I really missing something?

Your ENTIRE premise is based on the fact that you believe that Z did not initiate physical contact. If he did, how is T not justified in EVERYTHING that you put forth?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Who says Z "initiated aggressive physical contact"? Everything I have read on this, except for the shrieking harpies who weren't there and just want Z to die, says otherwise.

If nobody can dispute it, who the **** are YOU to dispute it? You weren't there either.

I'm not saying it happened like that, because, other than Z's words, we don't know. And why, if Z was in the wrong, would he admit it?

At the end of the day, NOBODY, other than Z and T know what started the fight.... YES or NO?

 

[KLB]

For the moment, lets presume all the circumstances you list above are gospel truth and there is nothing beyond that list that contradicts it. What degree of certainty do you believe that PROVES his story to?

I've asked this same question going on about 5 or 6 times but I am still yet to get an answer.

I once again grant you possible and even probable. However, I personally still hold you far far away from proven gospel.


Yes, I've read everything you said above. It still does nothing to change my OPINION you quoted because it in no way contradicts or contravenes it.

Joe

Isn't the onus on the prosecution to prove it didn't happen the way he says it did?

 

[jbombelli]

I'm not saying it happened like that, because, other than Z's words, we don't know. And why, if Z was in the wrong, would he admit it?




At the end of the day, NOBODY, other than Z and T know what started the fight.... YES or NO?

You said exactly that. When Churchmouse said "I would have busted "T" in this situation..."

You said "...In a situation where you followed him and initiated aggressive physical contact? So essentially, are you saying that you can start a fight, and then employ deadly force when you start to lose????" YOU are saying that's what Z did.

Nobody can say beyond a reasonable doubt that Z wasn't defending himself. If they could, you can bet they'd have released everything by now showing how guilty he is.

They should have never charged Z with anything.

 

[Fargo]

Isn't the onus on the prosecution to prove it didn't happen the way he says it did?

Yes, which is why I've said for some time I don't think the prosecution can meet its burden and I don't see how he can legally be convicted.

However, that is far from saying that his word is gospel. All it means it that it can't be proven he is not telling the truth. It in no way means that it is proven that he is telling the truth.

Best,


Joe

 

[ryknoll3]

In a situation where you followed him and initiated aggressive physical contact? So essentially, are you saying that you can start a fight, and then employ deadly force when you start to lose????

After all, if you're the only one left alive, who can dispute your "facts" concerning the encounter?

In Indiana you can.... if you are BOTH fighting, once someone clearly attempts to disengage from the fight, they are able to use deadly force if reasonably necessary to prevent death or SBI.

Even if Z started the "agressive physical contact", once T is on top of him and slamming his head into the concrete with Z screaming for help (provided that these are indeed the facts as they occured), wouldn't one reasonably presume that Z has attempted to disengage from the conflict, and under Indiana law (I know, different state) POSSIBLY be reasonable in employing deadly force?

From T's perspective, even if he is defending himself from a physically agressive Z, doesn't T's use of force need to stop once he's pounded Z into submission?

 

[Kutnupe14]

You said exactly that. When Churchmouse said "I would have busted "T" in this situation..."

You said "...In a situation where you followed him and initiated aggressive physical contact? So essentially, are you saying that you can start a fight, and then employ deadly force when you start to lose????" YOU are saying that's what Z did.

Nobody can say beyond a reasonable doubt that Z wasn't defending himself. If they could, you can bet they'd have released everything by now showing how guilty he is.

They should have never charged Z with anything.

...just as nobody can say that T wasn't defending himself. For all we know, Z, a stranger to T, displayed his firearm in an attempt to detain him, at which point T would be justified in using deadly force to escape his armed captor.

NOBODY knows what happened that night except Z, and in a situation where he is accused of murder and may possibly lose his freedom, there isn't a more biased source in recalling what happened that night.

All anybody can say, with 100%, is that T was doing nothing, other than looking "wrong" to Z.

 

[Fargo]

In Indiana you can.... if you are BOTH fighting, once someone clearly attempts to disengage from the fight, they are able to use deadly force if reasonably necessary to prevent death or SBI.

Even if Z started the "agressive physical contact", once T is on top of him and slamming his head into the concrete with Z screaming for help (provided that these are indeed the facts as they occured), wouldn't one reasonably presume that Z has attempted to disengage from the conflict, and under Indiana law (I know, different state) POSSIBLY be reasonable in employing deadly force?

From T's perspective, even if he is defending himself from a physically agressive Z, doesn't T's use of force need to stop once he's pounded Z into submission?

Florida statute 776.041 controls the ability to claim self defense by someone who was initially the aggressor. If Z was committing a forcible felony, it appears to me he has no right to assert self-defense.

If he was not, I think he is in a grey area. Simply starting to lose the fight and yell for help does not appear to satisfy it as there must be both a physical withdrawal from the fight and clear statement of intent to terminate hostilities. This must also all be in good faith. In the alternative, you could say that he was in fear of death/sbi but considering the injuries he had I don't know that he meets the exhaustion standard.

Losing is not the same as withdrawing and yelling for help seems to me to be as much calling for reinforcements to help you win as anything.

[SIZE=-1]776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who1) 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, unlessa) 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.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

[/SIZE]

Best,


Joe

 

[glockednlocked]

We can all monday morning QB this but keep in mind the case will be decided in a courtroom only on the evidence heard in that room, and by people who have somehow never heard of this case before.........Imagine who these people would have to be to have missed all of this up to this point. Right or wrong, heart in the right place or not, moron or not ...................Zim is screwed!

 

[Kutnupe14]

We can all monday morning QB this but keep in mind the case will be decided in a courtroom only on the evidence heard in that room, and by people who have somehow never heard of this case before.........Imagine who these people would have to be to have missed all of this up to this point. Right or wrong, heart in the right place or not, moron or not ...................Zim is screwed!

Given that there are no reliable witnesses, I'd have issue with him being convicted, based on what we know. I still think he's an idiot though.

 

[griffin]

If T was on top of Z bouncing his head off the ground, pummeling his face and preventing Z from fleeing, which all the evidence I've seen corroborates, it would be a clean self defense. Everything else is posturing... Or am I really missing something?

You aren't missing anything.