Zimmerman to be charged in Trayvon Martin shooting

[Tmost 17]

I think its high time that an appropriate action has been taken in this case. There was a lot about this case that we the public never heard becuase the police never investigated it. I think every shooting should be investigated. You can't just take the shooters word. We all (here) believe in the right to own guns. However, pulling the trigger carries a huge responsibility (and possible penalty) so you better be 'right" when you do. In this particular case "I" don't believe Zimm was in the right. following or stalking someone and then wanting to claim self defense when they confront you on it doesn't make you the "victim" you claim to be. Just my opinion. Second degree murder probably won't stick so I'm glad a lesser charge of manslaughter was included as a fall back.

[BarkNBite 15]

Three news agencies...CBS, NBC and CNN having to retract their prior predjudice statements and edited videos...

A Bounty / Wanted dead or alive placed on a man's head who was not yet charged of a crime by an independent organization violating Fed. law...

Civil Right activists threatening civil disobediance and violence in the streets by mobs carrying signs.....

Hollywood celebrities giving out false information nationally of his where abouts....

The AG calling for a Fed. investigation into racial profiling and civil right violations....

The POTUS saying publically the murdered actor was in fact the son he never had.......

Special Prosecutor......waives a jury trial and charges the actor with 2nd Degree Murder punishable by 20 yrs. in prison for defending against a physical threat.

 

 

IMO...............Fair Trial................Where ?

 

 

 

Tmost......................could not agree with you LESS.

[woodentoe 14]

following or stalking someone and then wanting to claim self defense when they confront you on it doesn't make you the "victim" you claim to be.

 

With all due respect, you seem to be injecting a whole lot of speculation in your assessment. The police did an investigation and the state prosecutor said Zimmerman couldn't be held in remand. The new prosecutor says murder 2.

 

You first said 'followed' and then 'stalked'. This inject the assumption that George Zimmerman was in the commission of a crime at the t outset. I would posit that this Is the very thing that hasn't been proven in this case. Seeing someone as suspicious, for any reason, isn't a crime. Calling 911. Not a crime. Getting out of his car is not a crime. "following" trayvon Martin is not a crime (both previous things very stupid IMHO ). Even if he walked up to Martin and shouted in his face! Even if he hurled racial epithets at Martin...this is not criminal action.

 

The only thing that matters is whether George Zimmerman was in the commission of a crime at the outset of the confrontation (i.e., illegally brandishing his firearm). The law doesn't care whether trayvon Martin threw the first punch or George Zimmerman did. If TM threw down, gm is immune through syg. If Zimmerman threw down, and Met his new duty to retreat when the tide turned against him and was restrained by Martin from doing so (this has been stated by eyewitness report), gm is immune under syg.

 

There HAS to be new evidence that we haven't heard in the media (who shouldn't be disclosing evidence anyway) in order to prove that gm was committing a state crime at the outset. If they cant do that, I think the state's case is flawed.

[Tmost 17]

Hey Wood.

 

I don't think im assuming anything. According to the reports Zimm thought the kid was suspicious. Ok, why? Was the kid doing anything wrong? but ok, call 911 and wait for the police to check him out. You don't stalk him which set this chain of events in motion. The plain fact is Zimm decided to follow this kid when he didn't have to. Even the 911 dispatcher told him it wasn't neccessary. He followed him anyway (with a gun). That sounds like stalking to me. I don't think you would find it so stupid if a guy was following "you" in a strange area. If you then decided to ask him why he was following you and a fight broke out and he shot "you" I don't think you would say "you" were wrong. It seems "you" should be the person claiming "stand your ground". As for hurling racial epithets it certainly does not help you. I think that factors into "state of mind and even intent". Now, if something else comes up to prove this was not the scenario then it should be investigated. Thats the whole problem here... the police did not want or care to investigate this shooting. The special prosecutor is supposed to have evidence the public has not heard. Which is why Zimm has been arrested and charged suggesting something of substance there.

[greatgunstatenj 32]

You first said 'followed' and then 'stalked'. This inject the assumption that George Zimmerman was in the commission of a crime at the t outset. I would posit that this Is the very thing that hasn't been proven in this case. Seeing someone as suspicious, for any reason, isn't a crime. Calling 911. Not a crime. Getting out of his car is not a crime. "following" trayvon Martin is not a crime (both previous things very stupid IMHO ). Even if he walked up to Martin and shouted in his face! Even if he hurled racial epithets at Martin...this is not criminal action.

 

The only thing that matters is whether George Zimmerman was in the commission of a crime at the outset of the confrontation (i.e., illegally brandishing his firearm). The law doesn't care whether trayvon Martin threw the first punch or George Zimmerman did. If TM threw down, gm is immune through syg. If Zimmerman threw down, and Met his new duty to retreat when the tide turned against him and was restrained by Martin from doing so (this has been stated by eyewitness report), gm is immune under syg.

 

There HAS to be new evidence that we haven't heard in the media (who shouldn't be disclosing evidence anyway) in order to prove that gm was committing a state crime at the outset. If they cant do that, I think the state's case is flawed.

 

I think your analysis of the SYG law is incorrect. If Zimmerman started the physical confrontation you can't then say once he was losing the battle he had to shoot Martin to stand his ground. However, if he confronted Martin and verbally asked him what the hell he was doing without racial epithets, which under law can be considered words that incite violence, and Martin threw the first punch, then he can claim SYG.

 

There doesn't have to be any new evidence. When a prosecutor gets on the podium and says, "We did not come to this decision lightly... let me emphasize that we do not prosecute by public pressure or by petition, we prosecute on the facts of any given case" you know that is exactly what happened.

 

The whole situation is a travesty. The kid probably didn't deserve to die but these days if someone is beating you up like he was doing, you have to shoot them because people have no respect for human life and what starts out as a few punches could turn into a life ending head injury.

[woodentoe 14]

 

I think your analysis of the SYG law is incorrect. If Zimmerman started the physical confrontation you can't then say once he was losing the battle he had to shoot Martin to stand his ground. However, if he confronted Martin and verbally asked him what the hell he was doing without racial epithets, which under law can be considered words that incite violence, and Martin threw the first punch, then he can claim SYG.

 

There doesn't have to be any new evidence. When a prosecutor gets on the podium and says, "We did not come to this decision lightly... let me emphasize that we do not prosecute by public pressure or by petition, we prosecute on the facts of any given case" you know that is exactly what happened.

 

The whole situation is a travesty. The kid probably didn't deserve to die but these days if someone is beating you up like he was doing, you have to shoot them because people have no respect for human life and what starts out as a few punches could turn into a life ending head injury.

 

 

It is possible that I read this wrong.

 

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.

[greatgunstatenj 32]

Hey Wood.

 

I don't think im assuming anything. According to the reports Zimm decided to follow this kid when he didn't have to. Even the 911 dispatcher told him it wasn't neccessary. He followed him anyway (with a gun). That sounds like stalking to me. I don't think you would find it so stupid if a guy was following "you" in a strange area. If you then decided to ask him why he was following you and a fight broke out and he shot "you" I don't think you would say "you" were wrong. It seems "you" should be the person claiming "stand your ground". As for hurling racial epithets it certainly does not help you. I think that factors into "state of mind and even intent". Now, if something else comes up to prove this was not the scenario then it should be investigated. Thats the whole problem here... the police did not want or care to investigate this shooting. The special prosecutor is supposed to have evidence the public has not heard. Which is why Zimm has been arrested and charged. So there must be something there.

 

You're assuming there is a lot more to the case that we never heard. You're also characterizing what Zimmerman did as "stalking" when it is no such thing. Are you telling me if you saw something shady in your neighborhood you wouldn't inquire as to what is going on? I think in most people's minds they wouldn't think questioning someone would be a "dangerous" thing to do or something that would warrant a violent response. Just because Zimmerman had a gun he is stalking? Are you sure you're pro 2a??

 

You're also making assumptions about racial epithets. There is ZERO evidence he said anything racial. When was the last time you heard someone use the word "coon"? Last time I heard it was about 20 years ago and the guy was 60 years old. It just doesn't fit the situation. Furthermore, I've heard the audio, it is unintelligible. More likely he said, "f*cking cold". My dad lives a couple hours from Sandford. When it's 63 degrees and raining my dad has a parka on!

[greatgunstatenj 32]

It is possible that I read this wrong. 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.

 

No, you are reading it correctly. I shouldn't have used the word analysis and I should have said "he can claim anything he wants, but no one is going to buy it if he started the fight". I mean at what point do you say, "oh sh*t, I picked a fight with a guy much stronger than me now I need to shoot him"? Typically I agree with SYG but not the case where someone starts a physical confrontation. Personal responsibility is a two way street. That's what SYG is about when it comes down to it. Sure, you can try to rob or assault me but you run the risk of me defending myself and possibly taking your life. Which puts the responsibility on the criminal. At the same time, an aggressor takes the chance when they confront someone in a physically violent manner that they may end up on the losing side of the battle. If they do end up on the losing side they can either take the a** whooping or shoot. If they shoot they belong in jail, they started it.

 

Do I think GZ started it? No I don't. I don't think following the guy was a criminal act, he was carrying legally, I think he was trying to do the right thing. He may have said something like, "what the F are you doing?" to Martin but that doesn't justify Martin jumping him and smashing his head into the ground.

[Tmost 17]

1.Because he's following someone he actually had NO reason to follow... that makes it stalking. The kid had not comitted any crime. He wasn't "getting away".

 

2. There is "always" more to a case than the initial reports to the public.

 

3. Most people are familiar with the slur "coon". It doesn't matter how long it's been since you heard the word used. It still means the same thing.

 

4. I did say calling 911 was Ok. But call and leave it to the police. However, What constitutes shady? What about the kid made him "shady?" Thats where this starts to sound like profiling. Throw in the racial slur and things really take a new tone.

 

5. I'm sure Trayvon didn't just turn around and start beating Zimm without some words from both sides being exchanged... thats where things turned. But again, if Zimm had not followed Trayvon none of this would have happened. So who really initiated the chain of events??

[woodentoe 14]

I hear what you're saying. My point is how this jibes with Florida law. On my reading of the law, the prosecution must prove that Zimmerman had intent to kill under a depraved mind (without respect for life)

 

In thus scenario, the fact that there were struggling and that there was even a fight rather than just a shooting suggests that Zimmerman had respect for life...his own.

 

If he didn't break any law up until the point that he shot, and there was a struggle that restrained zimmermans ability to retreat, then it was a good shoot.

 

The only way, I assess, he is guilty is if they can prove that Zimmerman just flat out hunted and shot martin. Hey, maybe that's what happened! If it did, he should rot, IMHO. But, there us emotion and what you or I think we would have done in a similar situation...and then there is the law and it's fair application.

 

This case cannot put syg on trial in Florida. It is settled law. Likely, the outcome ofthis case will alter syg in Florida. However, GZ is on trial here. Not stand your ground.

[NJdiverTony 27]

4. I did say calling 911 was Ok. But call and leave it to the police. However, What constitutes shady? What about the kid made him "shady?" Thats where this starts to sound like profiling. Throw in the racial slur and things really take a new tone.

 

Are you dense??? The kid is walking down the street in the dark, with a hood on, in a neighborhood that has experienced break-in's and crime in the recent past. So yeah, that makes him look suspicious AND SHADY! It has nothing to do with what color he is... I'm lucky enough to live in a rural area where there really isn't any crime... but you bet your a** that if I see someone walking around in the middle of the night with a hood on (I don't care if he's white, black, yellow, purple, whatever...), I will think it looks shady and I'll automatically wonder what the heck he's doing. Now, if I was in charge of a neighborhood watch program like GZ was, then I probably would follow the guy or keep an eye on him and find out what he's up to... or call the cops that someone suspicious is walking around my neighborhood.

[Tmost 17]

We will see how it shakes out Wood. It's going to be interesting and heated without a doubt!

[greatgunstatenj 32]

1.Because he's following someone he actually had NO reason to follow... that makes it stalking. The kid had not comitted any crime. He wasn't "getting away".

 

2. There is "always" more to a case than the initial reports to the public.

 

3. Most people are familiar with the slur "coon". It doesn't matter how long it's been since you heard the word used. It still means the same thing.

 

4. I did say calling 911 was Ok. But call and leave it to the police. However, What constitutes shady? What about the kid made him "shady?" Thats where this starts to sound like profiling. Throw in the racial slur and things really take a new tone.

 

5. I'm sure Trayvon didn't just turn around and start beating Zimm without some words from both sides being exchanged... thats where things turned.

 

1. Not true, me following someone if I want to ask them what they are doing is not stalking.

2. Maybe

3. It isn't part of today's popular lexicon, that is the point.

4. Where did you hear a racial slur???? What audio are you listening to that I haven't heard? Please post a link or something.

5. More assumption - because it would be out of character for a teenager to "sneak" someone? That was common place in my HS and I went to HS when kids still had a tiny bit of respect for each other.

[Tmost 17]

Are you dense??? The kid is walking down the street in the dark, with a hood on, in a neighborhood that has experienced break-in's and crime in the recent past. So yeah, that makes him look suspicious AND SHADY! It has nothing to do with what color he is... I'm lucky enough to live in a rural area where there really isn't any crime... but you bet your a** that if I see someone walking around in the middle of the night with a hood on (I don't care if he's white, black, yellow, purple, whatever...), I will think it looks shady and I'll automatically wonder what the heck he's doing. Now, if I was in charge of a neighborhood watch program like GZ was, then I probably would follow the guy or keep an eye on him and find out what he's up to... or call the cops that someone suspicious is walking around my neighborhood.

 

 

Wow, wearing a hoodie makes you a "criminal"?? Thats some very scary thinking. Very scary. I would rather be dense than whatever that suggests.

[NJdiverTony 27]

Wow, wearing a hoodie makes you a "criminal"?? Thats some very scary thinking. Very scary. I would rather be dense than whatever that suggests.

 

No, it doesn't automatically make you a criminal... but hiding your face, while walking around a neighborhood in the middle of the night does make you look suspicious. Especially in a neighborhood that has been experiencing crime.

[Tmost 17]

1. Not true, me following someone if I want to ask them what they are doing is not stalking.

2. Maybe

3. It isn't part of today's popular lexicon, that is the point.

4. Where did you hear a racial slur???? What audio are you listening to that I haven't heard? Please post a link or something.

5. More assumption - because it would be out of character for a teenager to "sneak" someone? That was common place in my HS and I went to HS when kids still had a tiny bit of respect for each other.

 

 

1. I think it does.

2. Definately.

3. It's still a slur.

4. Thats what it sounds like but you can hear what you like.

5. Thats was your H.S

[Tmost 17]

No, it doesn't automatically make you a criminal... but hiding your face, while walking around a neighborhood in the middle of the night does make you look suspicious. Especially in a neighborhood that has been experiencing crime.

 

Ok, but again call 911 and let them take it from there. Thats all I'm saying.

[Tmost 17]

Well thats enough on this. I'm not going to defend and reply to every response. this is just my opinion on the situation. Lets just see where this all goes. later!

[woodentoe 14]

1.Because he's following someone he actually had NO reason to follow... that makes it stalking. The kid had not comitted any crime. He wasn't "getting away".

 

2. There is "always" more to a case than the initial reports to the public.

 

3. Most people are familiar with the slur "coon". It doesn't matter how long it's been since you heard the word used. It still means the same thing.

 

4. I did say calling 911 was Ok. But call and leave it to the police. However, What constitutes shady? What about the kid made him "shady?" Thats where this starts to sound like profiling. Throw in the racial slur and things really take a new tone.

 

5. I'm sure Trayvon didn't just turn around and start beating Zimm without some words from both sides being exchanged... thats where things turned. But again, if Zimm had not followed Trayvon none of this would have happened. So who really initiated the chain of events??

 

If you please, read the text of the law regarding duty to retreat. Even if GZ was the aggressor. Even if he provoked TM. Even if he tackled TM to the ground. He is immune under the law. Because the duty to retreat ends if you are the aggressor UNLESS you try to retreat and end the confrontation. If GZ is losing the fight, with him as the provocateur, he has the obligation to run away to end the confrontation.

 

If he has exhausted his ability to retreat and TM is preventing his escape, GZ is IMMUNE under the law jn using deadly force.

 

If someone breaks in your house in Florida, and attacks you. Then, you turn the tide on them... Under the law you are obligated to allow their retreat. If you hinder that retreat, the home invader may be immune from prosecution for killing you under the rubric of self preservation.

 

Just read the law and see what the state is up against here. They need to prove a great many things to convict him.

 

They could charge him with aggravated assault if they can PROVE he was the physical aggressor. Remember, my freedom of speech ends when my fist meets your face. I can stand in times square and call every person I see a MFr, and it isn't a crime. But the moment someone incensed by my stupidity lays me out, THEY'VE committed the crime.

[Stickle 2]

Wow, wearing a hoodie makes you a "criminal"?? Thats some very scary thinking. Very scary. I would rather be dense than whatever that suggests.

 

 

What about someone wearing a ski mask? Would you think that would be strange? What if that guy walked into a bank?

 

 

I think it’s natural to see something and see it as out of the ordinary, there’s nothing wrong with that it’s a survival instinct we all have. Are you guilty of something, No but it sometimes raises eyebrows.

 

I work in an area where I see people wearing hoods in a manner that can be seen as suspicious and it heightens my awareness of the situations going on around me.

 

people today don't normally hide there faces unless they dont want anyone to know who they are.

[almiz111 27]

Hey this is great. I can hardly wait for the next 256 pages. The problem is that they are electronic and I can't put them in the woodstove.

 

Anyway the people actually involved will figure this all out. I just hope the result is technically and morally correct.

[woodentoe 14]

I think a lot of this is irrelevant because I am entitled to find someone suspicious for any reason I damn well please. In some cases, I may be right. In most cases, I'd be an asshole. There should be a disconnect between the reality of institutional racism that tells us that GZ profiled TM because of his race, and the application of the law as it is settled.

 

If GZ is immune from conviction in the shoot, it doesn't matter that he's not a racist or is a racist or is a Martian. People are allowed to be racist assholes if they want to be.

 

The case has to prove that a CRIME was committed. Last I checked, being an asshole wasnt illegal. If it were, our incarceration rates would be more off the chart than they are now.

 

I predict either a plea bargain to manslaughter without the gun... Or he walks.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

We have conflicting reports on what happened and we still have people who are making decisions on what the outcome will be like they were there. How about we knock off the speculating and let the facts prevail.

[BarkNBite 15]

Oh.....................and AS, JJ, and the NBPP aren't racists.....right.

[this_is_nascar 162]

The biggest issue for Zimmerman, as far as I'm concerned, is the fact that 1) he didn't cease follow/chase when suggested by the 911-Operator and 2) the fact that an unarmed kid was shot and killed. From the facts that we have as of right this minute, Zimmerman put himself in the situation he found himself in.

[BarkNBite 15]

Why do you say he didn't stand down...while his testimony is that he was returning to his vehicle after loosing site if the actor running off....who in fact then supposedly circled the bldg. instead of proceeding home to confront Z......whereas he was then faced with assault and battery by T.

[this_is_nascar 162]

Why do you say he didn't stand down...while his testimony is that he was returning to his vehicle after loosing site if the actor running off....who then supposedly circled the bldg. instead of proceeding home to confront Z......whereas he was assualted.

 

 

I'll admit to not keeping track of this case 100%, but the last I heard, when he 1st called 911, at one point he was instructed to stop persuit.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

I'll admit to not keeping track of this case 100%, but the last I heard, when he 1st called 911, at one point he was instructed to stop persuit.

 

"We don't need you to do that" != instruction. At most, it's a suggested course of action...

[DevsAdvocate 112]

George Zimmerman is innocent.

 

1. Florida's Stand Your Ground Law has no application here. The law protects you if you act against a threat, not actually being attacked. GZ fired while his assailant was already on top of him and beating him. The window for this law's applicability had passed.

 

2. According to Zimmerman/Police Statements, he didn't go 'looking for Trayvon', he left the vehicle to ascertain TM's direction (who apparently left the sidewalk and began to cut through peoples' property). GZ stayed on the phone while he did this (it's on the 911 transcript), but he lost TM's trail. The call to 911 ended with him returning to his vehicle when TM confronted him.

 

3. There is physical evidence of GZ's wounds. Pending the release of the autopsy, I think it will prove without the shadow of a doubt that he fired on TM while he was attacking him.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

The biggest issue for Zimmerman, as far as I'm concerned, is the fact that 1) he didn't cease follow/chase when suggested by the 911-Operator and 2) the fact that an unarmed kid was shot and killed. From the facts that we have as of right this minute, Zimmerman put himself in the situation he found himself in.

 

Problem is, there was a report by one of the media sources that had Z loosing visual contact and then later confronted by T. So what story do you want to go by.. Problem with the media, is they suck and sensationalize things, they omit things to make for a better story to sell.

 

Like I said, when all the facts are known it's all speculation, and tell me what had happened after the media explosion hasn't swayed public opinion due to what story has been told the most.