Child killed by Neighborhood Watch captain while walking home

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My God. If you listen to these 911 tapes, the neighbors captured Trayvon's dying screams for help.

http://z6mag.com/featured/trayvon-martin-911-call-from-neighbors-and-zimmerman-audio-166633.html

Does anybody have a better source for these "911 calls" than "z6mag"?

If you Google "Trayvon Martin 911 call," you'll receive a variety results and you can click on whichever one you deem to be up to snuff.

[Anonymous]

Former Fla. Gov. Jeb Bush: Self-defense law he signed doesn’t cover Trayvon Martin’s death:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/former-fla-gov-jeb-bush-self-defense-law-he-signed-doesnt-cover-trayvon-martins-death/2012/03/23/gIQAz3UpWS_story.html

[Anonymous]

Every person who has actually WRITTEN the law is coming out against their so-called "interpretation."

You mean some hill-jack, crypto-fascist gun-loving redneck state representative from Florida wrote a law defending the rights of gun owners, and didn't understand its full implications? Well, pardon me if I don't fall out of my chair in surprise.

It seems like there are several important issues here. First, the law states that the defense isn't available if the person claiming it acted illegally. So, was Zimmerman acting illegally? (The failure to follow the instructions of the 911 operator, accordign to law enforcement sources, is not illegal.) Is following someone ilegal? Is accosting him and/or chasing he when he runs away illegal, and sufficient to strip the defense? I have no idea (but then again, neither do all the posters who claim that there is no way in hell that the defense applies). Are there any Florida cases supporting the notion that self-defense/stand your ground can't apply if someone initiates an encounter (which Zimmerman clearly did) but doesnt't initiate the physical altercation (throw the first punch, or something close to it)?

Second, are there any witnesses to the start of the physical altercation? Not "it just doesn't make sense that XYZ happened" theories - those aren't facts - actual witnesses. Because if there aren't, and it's just Zimmerman's word with nothing to contradict it (no witnesses, no physical evidence, etc.), the case won't even make it to a jury. Can Trayvon's girlfriend, from what she heard over the phone, testify as to what happened? Since her statement came almost a month after the incident, is it credible? (In this respect, the shitty job the cops did will buttress her credibility.)

Third, can it be established that the cries for help heard on the 911 call came from Trayvon? If so, it goes a long way to attacking Zimmerman's story. But what if it was Zimmerman cryign for help as Trayvon was (understandably) kicking his ass? Seems far-fetched, but I thought I read a report to that effect. That would put a very different spin on things.

Overall point being, there are lots of possible outcomes here, and the combination of a shitty law, no eyewitnesses, and an appalling initial investigation could lead to Zimmerman getting off. It wouldn't be right, but it might be legally correct. The notion that this is a clear-cut case, though, is really misplaced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Every person who has actually WRITTEN the law is coming out against their so-called "interpretation."

You mean some hill-jack, crypto-fascist gun-loving redneck state representative from Florida wrote a law defending the rights of gun owners, and didn't understand its full implications? Well, pardon me if I don't fall out of my chair in surprise.

It seems like there are several important issues here. First, the law states that the defense isn't available if the person claiming it acted illegally. So, was Zimmerman acting illegally? (The failure to follow the instructions of the 911 operator, accordign to law enforcement sources, is not illegal.) Is following someone ilegal? Is accosting him and/or chasing he when he runs away illegal, and sufficient to strip the defense? I have no idea (but then again, neither do all the posters who claim that there is no way in hell that the defense applies). Are there any Florida cases supporting the notion that self-defense/stand your ground can't apply if someone initiates an encounter (which Zimmerman clearly did) but doesnt't initiate the physical altercation (throw the first punch, or something close to it)?

Second, are there any witnesses to the start of the physical altercation? Not "it just doesn't make sense that XYZ happened" theories - those aren't facts - actual witnesses. Because if there aren't, and it's just Zimmerman's word with nothing to contradict it (no witnesses, no physical evidence, etc.), the case won't even make it to a jury. Can Trayvon's girlfriend, from what she heard over the phone, testify as to what happened? Since her statement came almost a month after the incident, is it credible? (In this respect, the shitty job the cops did will buttress her credibility.)

Third, can it be established that the cries for help heard on the 911 call came from Trayvon? If so, it goes a long way to attacking Zimmerman's story. But what if it was Zimmerman cryign for help as Trayvon was (understandably) kicking his ass? Seems far-fetched, but I thought I read a report to that effect. That would put a very different spin on things.

Overall point being, there are lots of possible outcomes here, and the combination of a shitty law, no eyewitnesses, and an appalling initial investigation could lead to Zimmerman getting off. It wouldn't be right, but it might be legally correct. The notion that this is a clear-cut case, though, is really misplaced.

Overall I like your points, but why is the law shitty? If you read the law, the only thing it does is remove a duty to retreat when faced with a threat-- and why should I have to always run away if Im faced with an aggressor? (The state of maryland does not even have a castle doctrine, so in my own home, I have to first run away from an intruder before Im allowed to defend myself from them.) Further, it is not an automatic approval for use of deadly force. Applied incorrectly or misunderstood, we see what happens. The Florida law does have a clause regarding use of retaliatory deadly force by an aggressor (not saying that this applies here though)

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.

[Anonymous]

I think that everything turns on whose voice is heard screaming "help" and "no" in the 911 call. They should be able to do some kind of voice analysis to show which of them it was. Not to say that the shooting was justified even if Zimmerman actually was attacked, but those anguished screams have haunted me ever since I heard the 911 call last week. If those screams came from Trayvon Martin, then there is no case for self-defense. If it was Zimmerman screaming, things are muddier -- he could potentially get off under the Florida law (a law that I strongly disagree with as a matter of policy).

[Anonymous]

Where are we that it is okay to kill a small teen like this? To use at gun at one's whim? To cry self defense when killing but not when merely attacking (if this was the case)?

The thugs will say "America". Anyone else will answer "thug hell".

What kind of yahoos are on this board? Do you fear change that much? Perhaps you would do better in Appalachia. Not that there is anything wrong with that. But to try to impose your arbitrary rules in your little world, that is another story. You will not win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Where are we that it is okay to kill a small teen like this? To use at gun at one's whim? To cry self defense when killing but not when merely attacking (if this was the case)?

The thugs will say "America". Anyone else will answer "thug hell".

What kind of yahoos are on this board? Do you fear change that much? Perhaps you would do better in Appalachia. Not that there is anything wrong with that. But to try to impose your arbitrary rules in your little world, that is another story. You will not win.

Thank you for your contribution to an interesting discussion.

[Anonymous]

He was visiting his father and his father's fiance,BrandiGreen,ather rented townhomein Sanford, Florida, on the day he was killed, afterbeing suspended from school for 10 days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He was visiting his father and his father's fiance,BrandiGreen,ather rented townhomein Sanford, Florida, on the day he was killed, afterbeing suspended from school for 10 days.

So what? Is this just some lame. ineffective attempt to smear the victim?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Where are we that it is okay to kill a small teen like this? To use at gun at one's whim? To cry self defense when killing but not when merely attacking (if this was the case)?

The thugs will say "America". Anyone else will answer "thug hell".

What kind of yahoos are on this board? Do you fear change that much? Perhaps you would do better in Appalachia. Not that there is anything wrong with that. But to try to impose your arbitrary rules in your little world, that is another story. You will not win.

This adds a lot to this conversation. If you follow this thread, you are hard pressed to find anyone who thinks what happened is okay. Instead, you will find that we are trying to explore in what way it is humanly possible that this happened and in what way are there ramifications or not for Zimmerman. It seems you are too dullardly to think that there is a possibility of any other conversation than crying for the incarceration of a murderer.

[Anonymous]

The media refuses to publish pictures of Martin that are not emotionally positive
There is definitely media bias

[Anonymous]

^ The picture on the right is grainy and self-shot (from a bad angle, "up the nose." It appears to have been taken by a cell phone or a web cam. Do parents of any children who have experienced tragedy release poor quality pictures of their children for media use when better photos are available? There's also a smiling photo of Trayvon with a toddler/young child. It's not being widely used in the media because, like the photograph you posted, it's a poor quality photo.

The photograph that is seared in my mind from the Natalee Holloway case is her senior portrait photograph. I also remember a school photograph of Elizabeth Smart being widely used during her disappearance.

[Anonymous]

What does it possibly matter what Trayvon looked like? Unless you're going to argue that he deserved to be accosted, chased and shot because he looked a certain way . . . is that what you're saying? 'Cause that's bullshit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What does it possibly matter what Trayvon looked like? Unless you're going to argue that he deserved to be accosted, chased and shot because he looked a certain way . . . is that what you're saying? 'Cause that's bullshit.

so youre saying that peoples feelings are not affected by imagery? (doesnt change the major trajedy that occurred, doesnt make the child deserve anything, but in every single event we go to in our lives, appearances affect the way people think, its all part of PR)

[Anonymous]

Now I know why so many threads are about leaving the area. Is this board representative of this area? Scary. It seems there are far too many uncivilized beings that know very little about the law.