Child killed by Neighborhood Watch captain while walking home

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That's right folks you can't chase somebody down and then claim self defense when they whoop your ass... Well you can claim it - but it probably will not fly.

Florida's aggressor statute appears to disagree with your interpretation. Moreover, you misunderstand my point - or rather, you assume that Z chasing T was unlawful. That's not clear to me. I mean, if T noticed Z watching/following him, started walking fast/running away, and Z started chasing him, exactly what law would Z have broken? Taken a step further, T gets tired, stops, Z catches up to him, words are exchanged - at that point, have any laws been broken? Doesn't it all turn on who struck first? And unfortunately, the only living witness to that is Z, at least as far as I'm aware. I personally believe Z is responsible for the whole altercation, and likely took the first swing, and I think most other people do as well, but that doesn't really matter. The Stand Your Ground law, combined with Florida's aggressor statute and the lack of eyewitnesses at critical times in the altercation, really make this a mess (as far as establishing to the legally required level of proof what happened - apart from that it's a tragedy and a travesty).

Arguably, GZ was stalking TM.

From http://www.esia.net/State_Stalking_Laws.htm

FLORIDA

Section 784.048. STALKING; DEFINITIONS; PENALTIES. 1997.

(1) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.

(b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern a conduct composed of series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.

(c) "Credible threat" means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.

(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4) Any person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person that person's property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(5) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses a minor under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, so. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(6) Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section.

In particular, bullets 2 and 3 could apply. After the 911 call where he was told that he didn't need to follow TM, his pursuit was clearly "willful". Once can argue that his comment "these ***, they always get away." leads one to believe that his following TM was malicious. Repeatedly? GZ claims that he followed in his car, lost track of TM, then left his car on foot and hunted until he found TM again. One could argue that he was stalking and whether it was misdeamor or felony stalking, once it is deemed to be stalking, then he is no longer eligible for the "Stand your ground" defense.

[Anonymous]

That's creative - and I support any and all creative attempts to circumvent absurd Florida "self-defense laws" and get some justice in this situation - but you're reaching with the analysis of "repeatedly." My knowledge of Florida criminal law is limited - and I don't have time to look anything up now - but my guess is that "repeatedly" in this context wouldn't be satisfied by following someone, losing track of him, then finding and following him again a very short time thereafter. Happy to be wrong about that, though.

[Anonymous]

I posted a few pages ago that this all comes down to whose voice is heard crying "no" and "help" in the background on the 911 call. It seems like that is becoming a more and more central issue in trying to figure out exactly what happened.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-25/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-friend-20120325_1_abc-news-arizona-iced-tea-joe-oliver

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I posted a few pages ago that this all comes down to whose voice is heard crying "no" and "help" in the background on the 911 call. It seems like that is becoming a more and more central issue in trying to figure out exactly what happened.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-25/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-friend-20120325_1_abc-news-arizona-iced-tea-joe-oliver

It seems so absurd to me that Zimmerman apologists are making the argument it's him. Why would the person with THE GUN need to be yelling "no" and "help"? Why would Zimmerman, who is alive, be the one that stopped yelling no and help immediately following the gunshot and not Trayvon, the one who is actually dead? That entire argument makes no sense. The person yelling no and help sounds terrified and desperate, not somebody wielding a gun and thus, the upper hand and control of the situation. Total bullshit.

[Anonymous]

all the zimmerman apologists, i will for the sake of your argument, agree that this has nothing to do with race.

so now that this is out the way, the fact remains that zimmerman shot trayvon and a so-called investigation into the matter was never fully made. this is the primary argument here. zimmerman was never arrested, charged or otherwise and this is what is upsetting folks.

i understand the racial stuff is all "noise" to you and again, just for the sake of your argument, you are right. zimmerman is hispanic so how can he be racist, trayvon has pics of him in bagy pants, he was suspended from school. you are 100% correct on all of this. that still does not change the fact that the injustice of not fully looking into this was not really made.

this is the fundamental problem here. if you can at least concede that this makes sense to you and that the police and DA did a shotty job looking into this, we can all move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:and to the same people posting these pics, i ask you that unless you wore button up shirts and khakis throughout your entire childhood and intend on dressing your children the same, i say you barely have a case.

i also invite you to go to any mall USA and lets play a game where we try to find teenagers (black, white, indifferent) roaming the mall in suits and ties and see how much they out number the same kids in baggy jeans, hats, and headphones. im certain you will win the day no?

While I agree with you, the pictures posted on this thread in the last few pages are NOT of the Trayvon Martin who was killed. They are of another kid with the same name. Trayvon doesn't have a mouthful of gold teeth. He doesn't even look the same. To whoever went on Facebook and searched the name then assumed if two boys were black and had the same name that they must be the same person...you've got problems.

I have no idea what Trayvon was like as a teen but trying to point out his 'bad' character with fake pics seems pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted a few pages ago that this all comes down to whose voice is heard crying "no" and "help" in the background on the 911 call. It seems like that is becoming a more and more central issue in trying to figure out exactly what happened.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-25/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-friend-20120325_1_abc-news-arizona-iced-tea-joe-oliver

It seems so absurd to me that Zimmerman apologists are making the argument it's him. Why would the person with THE GUN need to be yelling "no" and "help"? Why would Zimmerman, who is alive, be the one that stopped yelling no and help immediately following the gunshot and not Trayvon, the one who is actually dead? That entire argument makes no sense. The person yelling no and help sounds terrified and desperate, not somebody wielding a gun and thus, the upper hand and control of the situation. Total bullshit.

PP here. I agree with you that it is much harder to imagine a scenario where Zimmerman is the one who is screaming. And when I heard the 911 call I definitely envisioned Trayvon. I hope that there is a way to prove one way or the other which one of them was the one heard yelling help on that recording.

[Anonymous]

It seems so absurd to me that Zimmerman apologists are making the argument it's him. Why would the person with THE GUN need to be yelling "no" and "help"? Why would Zimmerman, who is alive, be the one that stopped yelling no and help immediately following the gunshot and not Trayvon, the one who is actually dead? That entire argument makes no sense. The person yelling no and help sounds terrified and desperate, not somebody wielding a gun and thus, the upper hand and control of the situation. Total bullshit.

For starters, your characterization of anyone who doesn't agree with you as a Zimmerman apologist is pretty offensive, and just wrong.

Second, I believe there's an eyewitness who gave a statement to the police that Zimmerman was the one yelling.

Finally, with respect to the bolded section above, Z's weapon was holstered, an altercation starts, T starts kicking the crap out of Z (which is supported by the eyewitness's testimony), Z, getting his ass kicked, yells for help, draws his weapon, shoots, and then stops yelling because he's no longer getting his ass kicked.
Now, I have no idea whether that happened (although it does comport with the only eyewitness testimony that is out there, to my knowledge). But more importantly, neither do you. Which is why your statement that it's "total bullshit" and your attempt to cast everyone who isn't ready to convict Z without learnign more facts as a Zimmerman apologist is so misplaced, and so detrimental to having a dispassionate discussion about this case. Use your head for something other than holding up your hat, and you'll come to the unfortunate conclusion that, based on the evidence reported thus far, this is far from a clear-cut case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if anyone's mentioned it but the killer looks Hispanic.

This is another pic of Zimmerman. Looks white to me.

His mother is Peruvian. He is clearly not white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:and to the same people posting these pics, i ask you that unless you wore button up shirts and khakis throughout your entire childhood and intend on dressing your children the same, i say you barely have a case.

i also invite you to go to any mall USA and lets play a game where we try to find teenagers (black, white, indifferent) roaming the mall in suits and ties and see how much they out number the same kids in baggy jeans, hats, and headphones. im certain you will win the day no?

While I agree with you, the pictures posted on this thread in the last few pages are NOT of the Trayvon Martin who was killed. They are of another kid with the same name. Trayvon doesn't have a mouthful of gold teeth. He doesn't even look the same. To whoever went on Facebook and searched the name then assumed if two boys were black and had the same name that they must be the same person...you've got problems.

I have no idea what Trayvon was like as a teen but trying to point out his 'bad' character with fake pics seems pathetic.

im the guy you quoted and agree. i didnt choose to entertain whether it was trayvon or not cause some of these people insist on making their point even when proven wrong.

i will say its ironic that people take a pic of a black kid in baggy pants and gold fronts and splatter it on the internet to demonstrate how bad trayvon was to support their cause that zimmerman did not profile and target trayvon because of his race. think about that.

again, you go look for pics of what you deem show a "dangerous" black teenager to make a point that zimmerman did not go after trayvon because he was black and looked dangerous.......

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It seems so absurd to me that Zimmerman apologists are making the argument it's him. Why would the person with THE GUN need to be yelling "no" and "help"? Why would Zimmerman, who is alive, be the one that stopped yelling no and help immediately following the gunshot and not Trayvon, the one who is actually dead? That entire argument makes no sense. The person yelling no and help sounds terrified and desperate, not somebody wielding a gun and thus, the upper hand and control of the situation. Total bullshit.

For starters, your characterization of anyone who doesn't agree with you as a Zimmerman apologist is pretty offensive, and just wrong.

Second, I believe there's an eyewitness who gave a statement to the police that Zimmerman was the one yelling.

Finally, with respect to the bolded section above, Z's weapon was holstered, an altercation starts, T starts kicking the crap out of Z (which is supported by the eyewitness's testimony), Z, getting his ass kicked, yells for help, draws his weapon, shoots, and then stops yelling because he's no longer getting his ass kicked.
Now, I have no idea whether that happened (although it does comport with the only eyewitness testimony that is out there, to my knowledge). But more importantly, neither do you. Which is why your statement that it's "total bullshit" and your attempt to cast everyone who isn't ready to convict Z without learnign more facts as a Zimmerman apologist is so misplaced, and so detrimental to having a dispassionate discussion about this case. Use your head for something other than holding up your hat, and you'll come to the unfortunate conclusion that, based on the evidence reported thus far, this is far from a clear-cut case.

I was not making the case that anyone who does not agree with me is a Zimmerman apologist. I was specifically referring to the people who ARE Zimmerman apologists, and they do exist. The lengths they are willing to go to to exonerate Zimmerman of any culpability or wrong doing are extreme.

With that being said, I still find fault with the logic that Zimmerman was within his rights to shoot an unarmed person even if that unarmed person was kicking his ass. Zimmerman went out looking for a fight. If he got it, which it sounds like he did, and couldn't handle it, that's his own fault for engaging a person he was specifically told NOT to engage. At no point, even if Trayvon WAS kicking the shit out of him, was he within his rights to shoot him. He was the aggressor, he had a weapon and clearly could see Trayvon was not. Being kicked does not = being in fear for your life. He knew the police were coming as HE has called them. There was no excuse to shoot a boy HE hunted down and engaged. Even assuming the theory you suggest is correct, a teenage boy does not deserve to lose his life because someone with a hero-complex tracked him down, picked a fight, and then realized he was possibly outmatched. If George Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked by Trayvon Martin, it was his own fault, and shooting the person who he FORCED into a fight was not "standing his ground."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well, unfortunately, I'm guessing 90% of the robberies in that neighborhood were committed by black teens wearing hoodies. that is the unfortunate reality. so while it means nothing with respect to guilt or innocence, it was not totally unreasonable for Z to think the victim was up to no good. Right?

Maybe. but when Z starts calling 911 30+ times about "suspicious black males," (one of whom was 10!) it sort of makes Z an unreliable narrator when it comes to assessing the danger posed by a random young black male.

I know many folks here don't really like black people, or maybe African-American culture, or more accurately what they perceive as the tolerance for an anti-social element within the African-American community.

But in this case, it really seems Trayvon Martin is on the side of the angels here and Z was at best a poor assessor of the danger posed by African-American males, if not an outright racist, and was, most likely, the escalator of a situation that ended in the death of another human being. I mean, why would Z want to provoke the animal-like nature that racists tell me is present in each and every Black person? Why not let the police do it, and then protest when Trayvon gets off under affirmative action or the such?

There's enough honest-to-God black criminals for you to tell scary Black Male stories about. Trayvon wasn't one of them.

The earlier poster made a logical error. Even if 90% of the crimes (burglaries btw not robberies) were committed by blacks, it does not mean that most blacks are up to no good.

[Anonymous]

He has a Peruvian nose for one. No way does he look white. No way does he look European. Look at the flatness and shape of his face. He is trying very hard to be white when it is convenient for him.

All that aside, he is hiding for a reason. His attorney is trying to cull all of the public sentiment as preparation for the trial. Lets hope he is not a very good attorney, as I suspect. But also, even with the best attorney, Zimmerman does not stand a chance. Someone will get him.

He is hiding his control issues and frustration with life under the guise of neighborhood watch captain? You're kidding right?

I don't understand why there is all this discussion about race/color/whatever to veer away from the cold hard facts: what Zimmerman did was wrong. It was not self defense on his part. On we going to go on about race/color/whatever or are we going to discuss the facts?

I thought people here were supposed to be smart.

[Anonymous]

oops, captain (period).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

He has a Peruvian nose for one. No way does he look white. No way does he look European. Look at the flatness and shape of his face. He is trying very hard to be white when it is convenient for him.

All that aside, he is hiding for a reason. His attorney is trying to cull all of the public sentiment as preparation for the trial. Lets hope he is not a very good attorney, as I suspect. But also, even with the best attorney, Zimmerman does not stand a chance. Someone will get him.

He is hiding his control issues and frustration with life under the guise of neighborhood watch captain? You're kidding right?

I don't understand why there is all this discussion about race/color/whatever to veer away from the cold hard facts: what Zimmerman did was wrong. It was not self defense on his part. On we going to go on about race/color/whatever or are we going to discuss the facts?

I thought people here were supposed to be smart.

His ethnicity has already been reported. His father is white and his mother is hispanic.