<p>nd, from what we know, Trayvon Martin never killed anyone - Black, white, or green)"
Quote:
“And how could we possibly know that? Unless of course, this has a pre-scripted storyline. Nothing more to it than we want to believe and what the press edits to show us.”</p>
<p>“It’s perfectly acceptable, it seems, to say that about Black kids in certain circles, isn’t it?”</p>
<p>Maybe it is to you. To a rational person who isn’t looking for a hint of racism in every possible place, they might consider that one can’t make blanket statements about people they do not know. Black, white or green."</p>
<p>Exactly. You have no idea how PERSONALLY offensive I found the “how possibly could we know that.” I have two kids - one of whom would be perceived to be white, the other not. The idea that people would assume they could simply assume that one “might” be a killer, simply based on their skin color, or could simply even entertain the thought, is repugnant and repulsive.</p>
<p>The argument you’re presenting that only the confrontation itself…and not the incidents leading up to it…like Z’s ignoring the dispatcher to follow Martin isn’t only an extremely blinkered way of examining the cause and effect factors of the case in ways which defies common sense…but also sounds like the type of defense that if offered in cases attorney and cop friends have been involved with…including some prosecutors and former judges…they’d assume the attorney offering it must either be abysmally incompetent or feel the judge/jury have the intelligence/attention span of gnats. </p>
<p>If the criminal defense attorney who offered this argument isn’t outright laughed out of the court…a few Judges may feel their intelligence is being insulted to such an extent they may be inclined to use the legal leeway they have to increase the sanctions against the defendant…and possibly the attorney as well. </p>
<p>That’s not including the fact that if Z behaved in similar circumstances in many other parts of the US…he may be facing legal sanctions for stalking Martin. </p>
<p>Even if he meant it as a joke…some jurisdictions won’t let him off lightly for that. A couple of HS classmates’ Upper-East Sider neighbors’ kids found that out the hard way and now have criminal records as a result.</p>
<p>“Exactly. You have no idea how PERSONALLY offensive I found the “how possibly could we know that.” I have two kids - one of whom would be perceived to be white, the other not. The idea that people would assume they could simply assume that one “might” be a killer, simply based on their skin color, or could simply even entertain the thought, is repugnant and repulsive”</p>
<p>Well of course, if it was simply based on their skin color, it would be repugnant. That is obvious. My point is that you rarely really KNOW things about anyone for sure, and that you can make all the most obvious assumptions in the world and be wrong. I guess the problem is that my point is academic, whereas your point is personal.</p>
<p>“But unless you may, by the preponderance of reasonable evidence, be implicated in the death of anyone, you are innocent of murder. Therefore, it is not outside the realm of logic to definitively declare that you are.”</p>
<p>This is probably a case for people who are interested in arguing philosophical points, and I should defer to my kids, who are far better at this than I am. But I disagree with that (and no, it’s not that I think Trayvon was guilty of anything at all, it’s just making a point–and I haven’t been watching Fox news, so I don’t know what they’ve said). If I am not implicated nor convicted by a jury of murder, it just means that I wasn’t accused or implicated, but am considered innocent by the court. If I have actually murdered someone, it doesn’t mean that I have not committed the crime, it just means that I got away with it. I could still be guilty as can be, and will pay for it somehow…through my conscience, karma or God (for those believe in those sort of things).</p>
<p>“but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades”</p>
<p>That’s what they say, but actually close can send you to prison for the rest of your life.</p>
<p>I ask again, to those of you who believe Z was not exhibiting racial profiling in his viewing Trayvon as a suspicious person, please help me understand what was suspicious about him??? He wasn’t stumbling, he wasn’t bothering anyone, he wasn’t smoking, wasn’t carrying a weapon. What was suspicious???</p>
<p>and even if Z found Trayvon suspicious why wouldn’t Z wait til he actually observes signs of suspicious behavior before confronting Trayvon. Why do you think it’s acceptable for this guy to confront a young man simply for his physical presence in the community. There’s no way Z would know everyone in the community or their guests. His behavior was so over the line from the very start.</p>
<p>As an fyi - the standard of proof in criminal cases is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is tougher to meet than “the preponderance of the evidence,” which is the standard for civil cases.</p>
<p>As for Neighborhood Watches, here’s an article which explains why Z’s actions in carrying a gun and following/confronting someone is frowned upon by many more prudent groups as seen here:</p>
<p>Incidentally…the above article’s description of how their neighborhood watches are run and policies are very much in line with those that my older relatives/friends belong to…including in Florida.</p>
<p>(a) Martin notices Z following him, and starts running
(b) Z “knows” Martin is up to no good … using the same solid logic that led him to believe Martin was acting suspiciously … and chases after Martin
(c) Martin gets tired of being chased and turns to face Z
(d) Z draws his gun and approaches Martin
(e) Martin begins screaming for help from the gunman
(f) Z panics and shoots Martin
(g) Z bashes his nose into a lamp post, and bangs the back of his head on the sidewalk.
(h) Police show up and Z says “Officer, officer, that kid tried to kill me!”</p>
<p>Of course this hypothetical is so far-fetched that a cursory investigation would have disproved it. Too bad there wasn’t even a cursory investigation.</p>
<p>You know, I’d be interested in hearing the theories of those who don’t believe Zimmerman’s version of events. What do you think happened after his 911 call? Did Zimmerman just get ****ed at Martin’s refusal to explain himself and shoot him in cold blood, did Martin reach for his phone, such that Zimmerman thought it was a weapon, did Martin advance on him and cause him to panic? For those who are familiar with FL criminal law, wouldn’t the prosecutor have to come up with a theory of the events to determine whether the charge would be intentional, reckless or negligent homicide? Or is it sufficient to just charge that Zimmerman was holding the gun that killed Martin, with the details left up to the jury?</p>
<p>MommaJ, since you asked, my theory is that Zimmerman deputized himself as a police officer, chose to leave the safety of his car, and chased down an unarmed child (those last 2 points are facts, based on the 911 call). Z didn’t just speak to Trayvon, he physically accosted him in some way, evidenced by the abrupt end of the phone call as the earpiece fell from Trayvon’s ear. Maybe Trayvon did “refuse to explain himself” – was there any particular reason he owed Z an explanation? A struggle ensued. Maybe Trayvon did fight back – wouldn’t he have been entitled to? Maybe he did bloody Z’s nose, hardly a life-threatening injury especially when you are armed and your opponent is not. But at some point Z gained the upper hand, if he didn’t have it all along. We know this because we heard Trayvon’s screams right before the gun fired; in fact, I’d guess that he was screaming precisely because he was looking down the barrel of a gun. In any case, why would Trayvon have been screaming if he were in control of the situation? That doesn’t even make sense.</p>
<p>Then Z, maybe hurt and certainly enraged – but not in danger – pulled the trigger.</p>
<p>Momma–in your ? about others’ thoughts on what happened you gave 3 examples. You may not realize but in all 3 examples you imagine Z reacting to Trayvon’s instigation. You indirectly blamed the victim.</p>
<p>I’m interested to hear why you’re so invested in believing Z’s account when:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>He has a strong vested interest in having it believed to avoid possible arrest, prosecution, and the possibility of greater scrutiny from authorities beyond Sanford PD that may not be as amenable to his father’s connections/influence as a former judge. </p></li>
<li><p>He’s had previous documented history of making dozens of 911 calls prior to the incident which turned out to be false alarms and which seems to indicate excessive obsession with crime greatly disproportionate to what was found and racial profiling judging by the fact the vast majority of those he reported turned out to be Black.</p></li>
<li><p>He’s had previous issues with violence judging by arrests for assaulting a police officer, a domestic incident, and a report a former colleague working with him as hired security for parties that his temper became so excessive that their employer felt he was too much of a liability to continue employing. </p></li>
</ol>
<ol>
<li><p>Sanford PD has a serious credibility problem due to suspicions of protecting one of their “good old boys” not only for their handling of this case, but other cases such as a recent beating of a homeless man by the son of a police lieutenant where they also dragged their feet on arresting him and then…charges dismissed despite the fact the beating was clearly caught on video. </p></li>
<li><p>In followup to #4…seems there’s suspicion Sanford PD attempted to coach a witness to say that Martin was the attacker as seen here: [Neighborhood</a> Watch Shooting of Trayvon Martin: Probe Reveals ‘Questionable Police Conduct’ - ABC News](<a href=“Orlando Watch Shooting Probe Reveals Questionable Police Conduct - ABC News”>Orlando Watch Shooting Probe Reveals Questionable Police Conduct - ABC News)</p></li>
<li><p>Z has had strong connections with the local authorities not only because of connections to Sanford PD…but also due to his father’s status as a former judge. </p></li>
<li><p>He went against most neighborhood watch groups’ standard policies regarding volunteer conduct…including not carrying a gun in performing watch duties and not following/confronting a suspicious person…especially after phoning it in to the local authorities. Those policies were enacted, in part, to prevent this very type of situation from occurring. </p></li>
<li><p>Z’s act of following him on a dark February night could reasonably be taken by Martin as a hostile act of stalking him to no good end. Considering the reasonable and IMHO common sense fear that could engender…Martin had just as much of a right to claim SYG…if not more than Z. In fact…in many jurisdictions…Z’s actions here under these circumstances is covered under anti-stalking laws and dealt with accordingly.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>In general (outside of Florida), a prosecutor in a homicide case needs to prove whodunnit. A theory of what went down is important to determine the degree of culpability - but often that is supplied by circumstantial evidence.</p>
<p>It’s hard to speculate on what happened, but my best guess would be one of 2 scenarios: </p>
<p>(1) a “road rage” type situation, without the traffic. (for example, Martin gives Zimmerman the finger, and he just goes nuts and ends up shooting – if you Google the words “road rage shooting”, the sheer volume of results reporting recent shootings in that context is scary. Just within the past 24 hours there are reports of 3 different incidents, in Cleveland, Denver, & near Kansas City, Missouri - so the situation is fairly common).</p>
<p>(2) Alternatively, maybe Zimmerman thought he would put the scare into the teenager (who perhaps gave him the finger, shoved him, mouthed off, whatever) - and drew his gun & chased him down, grabbing on to him with the intent of scaring him… and then the gun went off. (I mean, close range firings are not always intentional - Google the term “child shooting” and you will find an equally unconscionable number of recent reports of a child being shot by another child - fooling around with guns is dangerous). In this scenario you have angry man, reckless brandishing, “accidental” firing – and a panicked shooter who invents a self-defense scenario because he knows he is very big trouble. (This scenario seems to fit the reports given by the two women who witnessed the immediate aftermath of the shooting)</p>
<p>We don’t know, but there is a way these things are usually decided: through trial. If in fact Zimmerman says it was self defense, that is the type of thing a jury can decide after sifting through the physical evidence & witness testimony. Zimmerman’s attorney can put on his case, and if he’s lucky, the physical evidence will match or corroborate Zimmerman’s story. (If not, Zimmerman will discover why criminal defense lawyers always advise their client to exercise their right to remain silent. Once caught in a lie, there’s no going back)</p>
<p>so, from the responses here, it doesn’t mater what actually happened between Z and Martin when they met because Z approached Martin…interesting. I think the law disagrees.</p>
<p>Are you all also against neighborhood watch people in general?..Sounds so, as they all must be racists looking to cause trouble, not trying to stop trouble.</p>
<p>I am against neighborhood watch carrying guns. I am against anyone who has not been extensively trained in restraint carrying guns.</p>
<p>And, as far as I am concerned, anyone who starts a fight cannot claim self-defense. I think that is just ridiculous.</p>
<p>An unarmed boy was shot walking home from the store. An arrest should be made in the case of any of our children or any of us being killed. Then, let the investigative process begin. </p>
<p>Nobody in this country should be allowed to take a life without an investigation. We have always had “self-defense” here, as a defense. These laws are just license to kill.</p>
<p>^but we don’t know who started the fight…that’s what I’ve been saying. It seems that some believe approaching someone is starting a fight…I disagree. Again, we don’t know what happened.</p>