New Details in the Zimmerman-Martin Controversy

[hops_scout]

<p>

there’s a reason he looked like a thug, the photo was a mug shot taken after one of his arrests!

</p>

<p>Yes, but people are using that picture to decide that he has no bruises, no broken nose, etc! They don’t comprehend that picture is not from this recent incident!</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>

As someone who grew up in 1980’s era NYC…if someone fitting that description was following me like that…I’m going to assume he’s going to mug me and act accordingly.

</p>

<p>I agree with this. If someone is stalking you, you can either run or confront the guy and fight him, which is probably what Martin did. How Zimmerman can claim self defense after putting Martin in that position is beyond me.</p>

[07DAD]

<p>A couple of observations. On the City of Sanford website are the printouts relating to every 911 call Zimmerman made. If you take the time to read them you will see that he reported “whites,” hispanics" and “blacks.” Males, females, young and old. </p>

<p>As the 911 tape of this call discloses, the 911 operator ASKED him for a racial description. IMO this is not and never was a racial issue other than after the fact by virtue of others, but not Z. </p>

<p>Cowboy? Probably. Horrible law. For sure. But the Orlando area has one of the highest crime rates. See this link. [Orlando</a> crime rates and statistics - NeighborhoodScout](<a href=“The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)”>Orlando Crime Rates and Statistics - NeighborhoodScout)</p>

<p>Z can claim self-defense because of Florida law. The law defines the offense and defenses to it. Outrage may result in a change in the law, but it should not make what was not “illegal” at the time illegal because you don’t like the law.</p>

<p>I infer from mini’s posts that he knows what I have experienced which is most police work is trying to tread water in an ocean of crime without sufficient resourses. The CSI’s of TV imagination don’t exist.</p>

[cobrat]

<p>

@Bay

The City of Sanford has posted a fair amount of information, including a letter from the Police Chief answering common questions about the incident, here:</p>

<p>City of Sanford</p>

<p>See, “Important Notice - Trayvon Martin,” and “Trayvon Martin Investigation.” It includes the initial police report, 911 calls, and other information.

</p>

<p>Considering the Sanford PD and Sanford’s past dubious history regarding racial profiling and similar incidents…I hope you won’t mind if I don’t share your inexplicable continuing faith in them or their investigation…especially considering there’s a good chance the above information is probably part PR and part COA.* </p>

<p>Not only should one go to primary sources…one must also examine the veracity/reliability of said source…and to what degree based on its past history/actions. </p>

<ul>
<li>Wouldn’t be the first time local law enforcement/officials attempted coverups/shelving cases to protect a “good ole boy”, laziness, town PR, not wishing to help someone who they didn’t like/outsider/minority, etc.</li>
</ul>

<p>

Z can claim self-defense because of Florida law. The law defines the offense and defenses to it. Outrage may result in a change in the law, but it should not make what was not “illegal” at the time illegal because you don’t like the law.

</p>

<p>That’s the Sanford PD’s and local officials’ interpretation of SYG. Police and local officials have been known to make wrongful interpretations of established laws before…especially considering it isn’t their job and they don’t necessarily have the training and/or lack of conflicts of interest to do so.</p>

<p>That interpretation isn’t helped by a drafter of Florida’s SYG law who said it was never intended to cover what Zimmerman did.</p>

[myturnnow]

<p>no Hopscout, people are not using the photo of Zimmerman to say he had no bruises. they are using the video footage of hiim 1/2 hr post shooting at the police station to say he appears to have no bruises.</p>

<p>07dad-you say Z can claim self defense bc of Florida law. As many other posters have pointed out, and indeed even the senator who wrote the law apparently would not agree with you.
The authors of Florida’s controversial “stand your ground” self-defense law say George Zimmerman should probably be arrested for shooting Trayvon Martin, reports the Miami Herald.</p>

<p>“He has no protection under my law,” former Sen. Durell Peaden told the newspaper. It is the fact that Zimmerman ignored the 911 operator’s advice not to follow Martin that former Sen. Peaden says disqualifies him from claiming self-defense under the law.</p>

<p>“The guy lost his defense right then,” Peaden told the Miami Herald. “When he said ‘I’m following him,’ he lost his defense.”</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57401619-504083/author-of-stand-your-ground-law-george-zimmerman-should-probably-be-arrested-for-killing-trayvon-martin/[/url]”>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57401619-504083/author-of-stand-your-ground-law-george-zimmerman-should-probably-be-arrested-for-killing-trayvon-martin/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[LasMa]

<p>

@hayden

The law has put the burden of proof on a dead person who cannot testify on his own behalf.

</p>

<p>That’s the whole problem, in a nutshell. In this case, the claim of self-defense is patently ridiculous, but because the law requires Trayvon Martin to prove otherwise, the claim stands. No doubt the Sanford Police Dept. has done some shoddy work, but if it weren’t for this law, I think even they would have arrested Zimmerman by now. </p>

<p>At the time this law was proposed, critics saw clearly that it was a license to shoot. Florida, and the 20 other states that have SYG, MUST get these abominable laws off their books.</p>

[DonnaL]

<p>

Yes, but people are using that picture to decide that he has no bruises, no broken nose, etc! They don’t comprehend that picture is not from this recent incident!

</p>

<p>No. People are using the police video of Zimmerman being led into the police station in cuffs, apparently less than an hour after the shooting, showing no cuts, no blood, no bruises, no broken nose, no stains on his clothes. Nothing. I’m really beginning to think that his entire story was a lie, and so were all the leaks from anonymous sources in the police department purportedly supporting that story. There were apparently no signs on Trayvon Martin’s body that he had been in any kind of fight, either.</p>

[hayden]

<p>Kajon post 394 and razorsharp 402 - Agree 100% with both of you, down to and including comments about Ed Schultz. </p>

<p>I think there’s been a disturbance in the force . . . .</p>

[07DAD]

<p>LasMa is completely correct, except the State of Florida has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z’s position is bogus!</p>

[poetgrl]

<p>I really agree with that LasMa.</p>

<p>I think that we have always had “self-defense” as a viable defense in this country. I don’t know why we need to make laws which protect someone’s “right” to shoot someone on the street. Possibly to protect those with “concealed carry” permits?</p>

<p>This is the gist of it, I think. These stand your ground laws were written by the NRA lobbyists, and while I stand firmly behind the right to bear arms, I think this goes far too far in the direction of recklessly endangering anyone.</p>

<p>We might have the right to own weapons in this country, but it doesn’t give us the right to use them other than in extreme duress.</p>

<p>In this situation, it is not true that “guns don’t kill people.” Without the gun and without this law (NOTE: he KNEW this law), Trayvon would be alive. I think it is the convergence of this law, the fact that the parents weren’t contacted for three days, and the seeming lack of any kind of serious investigation into the shooting which makes this a media story.</p>

[LasMa]

<p>

@poetgrl

I think that we have always had “self-defense” as a viable defense in this country.

</p>

<p>We indeed have, but up until Florida, we always had the “duty to retreat” – we were REQUIRED to try to escape, and were allowed to use force only as a last resort. The twist with SYG is that we can use force FIRST, without ever trying to get away.</p>

[BCEagle91]

<br>

<p>Report on the poor school teacher in Vermont who was lured out of her house and
strangled on a lonely road and then dumped into the river. Maybe the President could
have a news conference about her. </p>

<br>

<p>This just happened. The President is in Vermont right now and spoke about her earlier this afternoon.</p>

[Bay]

<p>

Mr. Zimmerman was taken into custody/investigative detention immediately
following the shooting. He continues to cooperate with investigators and is not under
arrest at this time.</p>

<p>This from the city of Sanford site Bay posted. Zimmerman was NOT arrested. This is the crux of the issue. Talk about waiting for the FACTS.

</p>

<p>It is true that Zimmerman is not under arrest today, and the PD did not formally record Zimmerman’s detention as an <em>arrest.</em> My point was that his treatment was the legal equivalent of an arrest (detention, custody, hand-cuffed, transported to dept. for interrogation); but the PD could not call it an arrest because SYG does not allow <em>arrests</em> to be made!</p>

<p>Zimmerman can be formally arrested if the prosecution determines that SYG may not apply in this case.</p>

[myturnnow]

<p>however Bay he remains a free man. He is not under arrest.</p>

[emilybee]

<p>"I wish there was a media source we could turn to that would only focus on presenting the facts and realistic accounts of the issue. "</p>

<p>PBS Newshour and NPR.</p>

[cobrat]

<p>

@Bay

My point was that his treatment was the legal equivalent of an arrest (detention, custody, hand-cuffed, transported to dept. for interrogation);

</p>

<p>I know several attorneys and police officer friends/acquaintances who’d strongly beg to differ on that point. Granted, the former are/were Judges and prosecutors.</p>

[parent1986]

<p>Doesn’t an arrest include a charge, court appearance, plea, bail or jail?</p>

[ellemenope]

<p>

My point was that his treatment was the legal equivalent of an arrest (detention, custody, hand-cuffed, transported to dept. for interrogation)

</p>

<p>Unless he’s been placed under arrest, he could have left at any time. Giant difference…</p>

[Bay]

<p>^You mean he could simply open the police car’s rear passenger door (which has no interior handles) and waltz his way on home in locked hand-cuffs? Right.</p>

[scansmom]

<p>^He was handcuffed, detained and brought in for questioning because at that time he was still a suspect of an actual crime - he DID just shoot someone but had not yet given an official statement to the police.</p>