<p>Zimmerman’s lawyers passed up the chance to have a self-defense hearing (which would have been decided by the judge). A date in April was held for this, and they didn’t use it. </p>
<p>The state released material related to a new witness the other day. The witness is a teacher at the local community college where Zimmerman took courses in criminal justice. Two textbooks on this topic were listed as evidence, as were emails between Zimmerman and the teacher (emails were redacted). Presumably, the state is going to claim that Zimmerman was well aware of the SYG law. Guy said something in his opening statement about Zimmerman “preparing” to meet the police immediately after the shooting.</p>
<p>The witness who was on the stand at the end of the day, when O’Mara belatedly objected, was testifying about records of previous calls Zimmerman had made to the police: “Records show Zimmerman, 28, called the cops 46 times between January 2011 and Feb. 26.” Feb 26, 2012, so 46 calls in a little over a year. </p>
<p>Several of these calls were very similar to the one he made about Trayvon - young black men who were “suspicious”. If you listen to the calls, he uses the same language over and over again.</p>
<p>NYMomof2, If Zimmerman only called the police 46 times in 13 months he only called once every 10 days. That’s very infrequent for a Neighborhood Watch leader to call.</p>
<p>Remember, the subdivision where Zimmerman lived had been having constant break-ins.</p>
<p>Police was on-route within a minute or two. He was told to stay in the car and not to pursue the person. The kid would most likely not try anything physical with the police, a Neighbourhood Watch person should understand that misunderstanding and escalation is more likely with an unknown plain clothes person following someone at night. Unless there is something immediate and urgent, he ought to have waited for the police. What other evidences that were there to justify him to engage before the police come?</p>
<p>Isn’t there a clear protocol that these Neighbourhood Watch are taught to follow? You mean anyone can just walk around with a gun and questions people randomly without a cause?</p>
<p>IMHO I think it will be difficult to prove Zimmerman acted in self defense. I think he just panicked and fired went he got hit. Not enough reason to kill someone. If someone hits, you can hit him back but you cannot pull a gun and kill him. Zimmerman put himself into the situation. He called the police but he stayed at the scene. He was looking for trouble.</p>
<p>To be precise, according to the transcript of Zimmerman’s 911 call:</p>
<p>Dispatcher: Are you following him?</p>
<p>Zimmerman: Yeah.</p>
<p>Dispatcher: OK, we don’t need you to do that.</p>
<p>Many people have misquoted this, here and in the media.</p>
<p>Being told, “OK, we don’t need you to do that,” (actual quote) is not the same thing as being told “Do not follow him. Remain in your vehicle,” or “He was told NOT to follow him. . .” or “The dispatcher/cop told him to STOP following him.” (various misquotes)</p>
<p>I agree with all those who say “we don’t know what happened that night.” Let’s turn that view into action. Let’s make it the law of the land that it’s OK to shoot an unarmed person dead … so long as there are no witnesses to say “what happened that night.” (Actually, we better make that “multiple witnesses.” You know how unreliable witness testimony is.)</p>
<p>MY VIEW is that Zimmerman stumbled across Martin and his drug-dealing gang that night, which then attacked him. Zimmerman valiantly fought for his life. One of the thugs got GZ’s gun away from him and accidentally shot Martin. Seeing their leader dead, Martin’s gang fled, taking their Glocks and Uzis with them. GZ, being respectful of minorities, accepted responsibility for the death (which explains his flaky story). I stand behind this view (not really) because “we don’t know what happened that night.”</p>
<p>I’ve heard the tape. It’s clear they don’t want him to follow Martin.</p>
<p>Either way. </p>
<p>Let’s present another scenario:</p>
<p>Your kid is walking home from the convenient store talking on the phone with his girlfriend. He has some skittles. A guy sees him and decides he is dangerous. He takes out his gun, calls the police, and starts to follow your kid home. Your kid is a little freaked out he is being followed. He turns around and the guy is clearly following him, not just inadvertently there.</p>
<p>I simply cannot come up with one single scenario in my head in which somebody follows somebody else with a gun and kills him and the person who was following the other person was not responsible. (Have you ever been followed? It’s pretty scary.)
A scuffle ensues. Your kid is shot dead in the heart.</p>
<p>Clearly, this guy was defending himself from your kid, who he was following.</p>
<p>I’m no Zimmerman fanboy, I just think he has legal rights that he is entitled to. Zimmerman is facing life in prison if convicted. If it is proven that he gunned down Trevor in a depraved state of mind, convict him of second degree murder. If it isn’t proven, let him go. Zimmerman should not be found guilty because it pleases the most people, it is convenient, or to make him a sacrificial lamb.</p>
<pre><code> #######
</code></pre>
<p>The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.</p>
<p>A 17 year old was killed walking home from the store by someone with no training because there were crimes committed in the neighborhood.</p>
<p>If this was a white suburban child there would be no justification where we could twist all our reasoning where this is acceptable or even defensible.</p>
<p>I’ll be following this trial with riveted attention. I’d like to hear the answer to a great many questions, the first being: Exactly what behaviors did Travor Martin exhibit that GZ could have been reasonably interpreted as “suspicious” when he placed the 911 call to police? I seriously need to know. Here are the known facts about what TM was doing while GZ observed him: He was walking along a residential street in the direction of his father’s home. He was carrying a container of Arizona Ice Tea and a bag of skittles candy, which surveillance tapes from the 7-11 show him as having purchased only minutes earlier. He was talking on his cell phone. What was it about his demeanor that made GZ view it as “suspicious”? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The threshold for “cause” is pretty low, and can be said to be entirely subjective, apparently. My son was stopped in our neighborhood and questioned by police on his way back home from a walk a few years ago. Like GZ, someone had called police (don’t know if it was 911) when they spotted him walking down the street toward the man-made lake in an adjacent subdivision, calling him “a suspicious looking black guy” (he’s bi-racial, btw, but evidently the caller couldn’t see his white half). My S use to take frequent walks to ruminate and clear his head. He’s always enjoyed being outdoors, having spent years in scouting (Order of the Arrow Eagle) and even now as an adult Sea Scout Leader. But, he doesn’t take walks like he use to. Given his own experience, and in the wake of the Travon Martin shooting, he knows he can’t just thoughtlessly stroll through any neighborhood, not even his own, with the assumption that he won’t be stopped and questioned by police. I just thank God the old biddy who glared at him from her porch as he passed by only called the police, and didn’t decide to confront him with a gun that evening. I shudder to think what could have happened had she felt “threatened” enough to shoot him in “self-defence”. I can no longer remember with confidence what time of year it was when my S was stopped, so I can’t say whether or not he was wearing a hoodie. However, at that time, his cold weather wardrobe consisted almost entirely of jeans and fleece hooded sweatshirts. Travon was apparently wearing a hoodie on that chilly night in Florida, and many have called his choice of attire “suspicious” in its own right. Do you have a teenaged son? How often does he wear hoodies? Does he wear one while walking in a place he has valid reason to be? Has he ever been stopped by police just for being there?</p>