Child killed by Neighborhood Watch captain while walking home

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, exactly. The PP who is saying we don't know what happened is either an idiot or trying to incite debate. Nothing would have happened if Zimmerman had followed police instructions.

New poster here. She is not either of those things. What she is tryingt o say (and hopefully I do a better job of it) is that, in our justice system, the jury will hear testimony about various things in this case. There will be the initial 911 call. There will be testimony from the police officer, and the medical examiner, and some or all of the people who called 911 to report the fight and others who may have overheard it or seen it.

Out the facts will come, bit by bit, and the jury mus decide what is true and what isn't. We do not yet know all fot he facts that will be presented to the jury. We do not know, for example, if all of the witnesses said the kid was beating the crap out of GZ and saying that he was going to kill him (seems unlikely, but we don't know). We also don't know whether GZ yelled during the fight, "I am going to take care of your sorry N***** a**." We don't know that, either.

Too often, people make up their minds without all of the facts.

In a case like this, to me it certainly looks exactly like what many PPs are suggesting is true. We ultimately won't know for sure. There are many sides to the truth. There isn't just one truth. People's perceptions are shaded by their own experiences and also by their involvement in the situaiton. You may have two witnesses to the exact same fight, and one says GZ sounded angry and confrontational and the other one saying he sounded nice. One isn't necessarily lying. I think of it sort of like nstant replays. SOmetimes you need all the camera angles, and even then it isn't always clear.

Ultiamtely, what matters is that the police should be investigating this thoroguhlty and they should arrest this guy if they have grounds to do so. It's hard to see why they don't. But we don't know what's on the 911 tape and we also don't know what the witnesses said. There could deifntiely be some things on that tape that would warrant a DOJ investigation into the failure to arrest or there could be some other factor (like it turns out Mr. Criminal Justice Major did an internship at the PD or osmething).

We don't know now where this will go, although from where I sit it's pretty hard to see how there could be any angle but the obvious one. I, however, do not get to make any decisions here since I am not the FL police or prosecutor, and I will not be eligible to serve on a FL jury.

OMG! Get this through your head, already. There was NO ARREST! No one is disagreeing with the premise of your argument that the truth should be allowed to come out. People just want a chance for that to happen! There will be none of those things! There will be no witnesses, no jury, no TRIAL and no OPPORTUNITY for the truth to come out, "bit by bit" or otherwise; there will be no opportunity for one witness to say one thing and another witness to say another, IF THERE IS NO ARREST! Do you understand that? The police do not get to make all of those calls. That is NOT their job, to decide guilt or innocence; they simply make the arrest so that the criminal justice system can do its job.

Holy crap, people!

[Anonymous]

and you wonder why we are angry

[Anonymous]

People always cite that the criminal justice system is overflowing with Blacks. They are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system. I always say because justice is not and has never been blind. White people who commit the same crimes are not always arrested. The police are the first line of criminal justice. If they decide there will be no arrest, that white person will never make it in the system. How often do you think the police make a decision not to arrest a Black man given the opportunity.

This sad sad case in which a teenage boy was murdered and George Zimmerman walked away, where most anybody of color would have been detained, is a perfect case in point that justice indeed is practiced in black and white.

[Anonymous]

This is a photograph of the killer, George Zimmerman:



It's from his 2005 arrest for suspicion of battery on a law enforcement officer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, exactly. The PP who is saying we don't know what happened is either an idiot or trying to incite debate. Nothing would have happened if Zimmerman had followed police instructions.

New poster here. She is not either of those things. What she is tryingt o say (and hopefully I do a better job of it) is that, in our justice system, the jury will hear testimony about various things in this case. There will be the initial 911 call. There will be testimony from the police officer, and the medical examiner, and some or all of the people who called 911 to report the fight and others who may have overheard it or seen it.

Out the facts will come, bit by bit, and the jury mus decide what is true and what isn't. We do not yet know all fot he facts that will be presented to the jury. We do not know, for example, if all of the witnesses said the kid was beating the crap out of GZ and saying that he was going to kill him (seems unlikely, but we don't know). We also don't know whether GZ yelled during the fight, "I am going to take care of your sorry N***** a**." We don't know that, either.

Too often, people make up their minds without all of the facts.

In a case like this, to me it certainly looks exactly like what many PPs are suggesting is true. We ultimately won't know for sure. There are many sides to the truth. There isn't just one truth. People's perceptions are shaded by their own experiences and also by their involvement in the situaiton. You may have two witnesses to the exact same fight, and one says GZ sounded angry and confrontational and the other one saying he sounded nice. One isn't necessarily lying. I think of it sort of like nstant replays. SOmetimes you need all the camera angles, and even then it isn't always clear.

Ultiamtely, what matters is that the police should be investigating this thoroguhlty and they should arrest this guy if they have grounds to do so. It's hard to see why they don't. But we don't know what's on the 911 tape and we also don't know what the witnesses said. There could deifntiely be some things on that tape that would warrant a DOJ investigation into the failure to arrest or there could be some other factor (like it turns out Mr. Criminal Justice Major did an internship at the PD or osmething).

We don't know now where this will go, although from where I sit it's pretty hard to see how there could be any angle but the obvious one. I, however, do not get to make any decisions here since I am not the FL police or prosecutor, and I will not be eligible to serve on a FL jury.

OMG! Get this through your head, already. There was NO ARREST! No one is disagreeing with the premise of your argument that the truth should be allowed to come out. People just want a chance for that to happen! There will be none of those things! There will be no witnesses, no jury, no TRIAL and no OPPORTUNITY for the truth to come out, "bit by bit" or otherwise; there will be no opportunity for one witness to say one thing and another witness to say another, IF THERE IS NO ARREST! Do you understand that? The police do not get to make all of those calls. That is NOT their job, to decide guilt or innocence; they simply make the arrest so that the criminal justice system can do its job.

Holy crap, people!

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. Not sure why some of these people aren't getting this VERY important fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How will facts come out in the case when there is no arrest? Do you really think that justice is truly served in every case. That police never error intentionally or accidentally? That they don't turn a blind eye? That money doesn't talk? I think it is really naive to think that if any wrongdoing happened then he will be arrested and found guilty. He could be 100% guilty and never arrested or tried. I have a feeling if this was a black man shooting a white teen in an affluent neighborhood you wouldn't be so concerned about not in any way presuming any guilt, you'd be calling for blood.

You guys have to decide what you are so upset about. First, you say that anyone suggesting that there isn't a valid self-defense claim or that there might be some other thing we don't know that would cause the case to be looked at differently is an idiot or trying to start trouble. Then when I tried to expand on that and to say this is why you can't just go by the facts in the media, now I'm an idiot because there was no arrest in fact. Decide what your point it: there is no possible valid defense and a murderer is walking free OR you're pissed because he wasn't arrested thereby meaning he will never be convicted or (what I think is probably the case) you are pissed that he wasn't arrested because it is blindingly obvious to you ( and you are always right) that he should be a convicted murderer.

I don't think the police always get it right. In fact, I do a ton of pro bono work to help overturn wrongful convictions. I went to great pains to point out in my post that it was probably the case that it was everything peple think it is: racially motivated, completely unprovoked, some whack-job who decided he was going to protect his perfect gated neighborhood from this "threat" by using deadly force. I mean, what kind of idiot calls the police about somebody walking down the street who looks suspicious and then decides he has to get out of his car with a gun because the person is so dangerous that he can't wait for the police to get there? Yet, the mob mentality in this thread, without any recognition that there could be another side (even if unlikely) or that there could be something we don't know is frightening. Finally, your suggestion that I would feel differently if a black resident shot a white teen in Spring Valley is absolutely offensive and misplaced. If I won't jump on the mob band wagon, now I'm racist, too? Awesome.

The justice system isn't supposed to rush to justice for anybody. As I previously said, if there is some reason the police are slakcling here, I hope DOJ will investigate it with the time and care it deserves so that no one else gets a free pass on any crime, let alone one that is as bizarre as this one seems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
OMG! Get this through your head, already. There was NO ARREST! No one is disagreeing with the premise of your argument that the truth should be allowed to come out. People just want a chance for that to happen! There will be none of those things! There will be no witnesses, no jury, no TRIAL and no OPPORTUNITY for the truth to come out, "bit by bit" or otherwise; there will be no opportunity for one witness to say one thing and another witness to say another, IF THERE IS NO ARREST! Do you understand that? The police do not get to make all of those calls. That is NOT their job, to decide guilt or innocence; they simply make the arrest so that the criminal justice system can do its job.

Holy crap, people!

THANK YOU. Good lord.

[Anonymous]

I've been avoiding this thread the past few days because I had a feeling it would depress the hell out of me. Having read it, I was right. This is horrible.

[Anonymous]

Has he been arrested yet?

[Anonymous]

Arresting the guy and holding him until the charges are sorted out wouldn't hurt. Most black men who are suspected of a crime are arrested and held until such time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How will facts come out in the case when there is no arrest? Do you really think that justice is truly served in every case. That police never error intentionally or accidentally? That they don't turn a blind eye? That money doesn't talk? I think it is really naive to think that if any wrongdoing happened then he will be arrested and found guilty. He could be 100% guilty and never arrested or tried. I have a feeling if this was a black man shooting a white teen in an affluent neighborhood you wouldn't be so concerned about not in any way presuming any guilt, you'd be calling for blood.

You guys have to decide what you are so upset about. First, you say that anyone suggesting that there isn't a valid self-defense claim or that there might be some other thing we don't know that would cause the case to be looked at differently is an idiot or trying to start trouble. Then when I tried to expand on that and to say this is why you can't just go by the facts in the media, now I'm an idiot because there was no arrest in fact. Decide what your point it: there is no possible valid defense and a murderer is walking free OR you're pissed because he wasn't arrested thereby meaning he will never be convicted or (what I think is probably the case) you are pissed that he wasn't arrested because it is blindingly obvious to you ( and you are always right) that he should be a convicted murderer.

I don't think the police always get it right. In fact, I do a ton of pro bono work to help overturn wrongful convictions. I went to great pains to point out in my post that it was probably the case that it was everything peple think it is: racially motivated, completely unprovoked, some whack-job who decided he was going to protect his perfect gated neighborhood from this "threat" by using deadly force. I mean, what kind of idiot calls the police about somebody walking down the street who looks suspicious and then decides he has to get out of his car with a gun because the person is so dangerous that he can't wait for the police to get there? Yet, the mob mentality in this thread, without any recognition that there could be another side (even if unlikely) or that there could be something we don't know is frightening. Finally, your suggestion that I would feel differently if a black resident shot a white teen in Spring Valley is absolutely offensive and misplaced. If I won't jump on the mob band wagon, now I'm racist, too? Awesome.

The justice system isn't supposed to rush to justice for anybody. As I previously said, if there is some reason the police are slakcling here, I hope DOJ will investigate it with the time and care it deserves so that no one else gets a free pass on any crime, let alone one that is as bizarre as this one seems.

Fact: you are not a lawyer. And if I'm wrong (btw, I am not the PP you're responding to) please promise me you will go back and take a few remedial education courses. Yes, I'm sorry, you ARE an idiot to make all of these sweeping "let the facts come out during the trial" comments about a man who was not even ARRESTED! The only response that makes sense here, from you, is to say "gee, I guess I didn't realize he wasn't even arrested. That changes things." Whether or not PP will still feel justice was not found if there is an arrest with no conviction has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not she gets to feel outrage that there was not even so much as an arrest.

People are angry, yes, but nobody is mobbing. We are calling for an arrest. Certainly, I can see a handful of scenarios where it was self-defense. Let's say the shooter did not actually follow him, merely kept observing him, and then saw Mr. Martin try to break into a house, and intervened. That might be a different story. Or, maybe, Zimmerman stayed in his car, but nonetheless captured the attention of Mr. Martin, who pulled Zimmerman out of the car and whooped his ass. Each of these scenarios would still have me thinking "why didn't Zimmerman stay away?" but certainly I could see where the law would take a different view. it's not illegal to follow someone in your car, even if it should be.

So yes, I actually DO see scenarios where the shooter could have genuinely been activing in self defense (though, do I think it's likely? No.) But, there is simply no way this is open and shut. You have a man dead, possibly no witnesses, and police arrive to find someone has shot someone else, and admits it, and says "it was self defense."

So you tell me in what world does this not lead to at least an arrest and a thorough investigation? I mean, if someone breaks into your HOUSE and you shoot him you can be arrested in some scenarios. So how is it that the police can possibly know, with NO doubt, that this guy is telling the truth about how things unfold? And does the fact that the police say they let him go based on the fact that he has "a squeaky clean record" (when he doesn't!) and a "four year degree" lead you to believe something STINKS HERE?

The police do not get to be judge and jury. Get it?

[Anonymous]

Orlando Watch Shooting Probe Reveals Questionable Police Conduct

ABC News has uncovered questionable police conduct in the investigation of the fatal shooting of an unarmed black teenager by a white neighborhood watch captain in Florida, including the alleged "correction" of at least one eyewitness' account.

Read more:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/12/justice/florida-teen-shot/index.html?iref=obnetwork

[Anonymous]

Fatal shooting of Florida teen turned over to state attorney

Sanford, Florida (CNN) -- A case involving the fatal shooting of an unarmed Florida teen, which has sparked outrage and calls for justice, is in the hands of the state attorney's office.

Read more: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/14/justice/florida-teen-shooting/

[Anonymous]

Here is the ABC story that details the appalling police mishandling.

Just horrifying. Now, in addition to Zimmerman's arrest, I'd like to see a few police officers fired, possibly arrested themselves.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watch-shooting-trayvon-martin-probe-reveals-questionable/story?id=15907136#.T2Fm2JiseMN

[Anonymous]

This story is why I donate to the Southern Poverty Law Center...