<p>The police report completed February 27, 2012 supports Zimmerman’s position. Zimmerman’s back looked wet and was covered in grass. Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose and back of the head. Zimmerman exclaimed that “I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me.” </p>
<p>[Sanford</a>, FL police report on Trayvon Martin](<a href=“Sanford, FL Police Report On Trayvon Martin | PDF”>Sanford, FL Police Report On Trayvon Martin | PDF)</p>
<p>There are issues about when that report was written. For example, it has Trayvon Martin’s name-- but the police didn’t identify Trayvon Martin for a while. So we might have some questions as to the accuracy and veracity of the report.</p>
<p>It looks like the report was processed by a typist who compiled it from numerous sources. The narratives are noted with the dates and times and do not mention Trayvon’s name.</p>
<p>I just heard NPR tonight interviewing Z’s lawyer. His position is that Martin came up, unprovoked, and attacked Z. Z “only” shot Martin in self-defense. I suppose this isn’t new news, but it was a little different (and scary) hearing this guy tell the story with unwavering resolve.</p>
<p>The lawyer started to talk about Martin’s past which he knew all about, but when the interviewer asked about Z’s record (which includes something like assaulting the police and a domestic-abuse issue), the lawyer tripped over his words and eventually said he had no knowledge of Z’s record probably b/c they weren’t felonies or were exspunged.</p>
<p>“If someone pulled out a gun on me in a similar situation, I’d try to wrestle/disarm him/her ASAP no matter what as all bets are off when a gun is brought into play”</p>
<p>No. Don’t do that, you will probably die. In that situation, you give them your wallet, if that is what they want, or stop doing what it is that is offending them. Or consider running. Last option is to try to wrestle/disarm them, and that is only if you feel your life or that of others is in peril. That is the last thing you want to do if you want to stay alive. Of course if you think the guy is intending to kill you or others, sure, jump on em. But something less than that? Forget it, your life is worth more than that.</p>
<p>Not sure if this was mentioned yet or not, but last week, George Zimmermans brother, Robert Jr. appeared for an interview on CNN with Piers Morgan. During that interview he made a couple of interesting statements, both mentioned in an article in the Miami Herald:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[George</a> Zimmerman’s brother defends him, calls him a ‘neighbor everyone would want to have.’ - Miami-Dade - MiamiHerald.com](<a href=“http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/29/2722006/george-zimmermans-brother-defends.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy]George”>http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/29/2722006/george-zimmermans-brother-defends.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy)</p>
<p>In the same interview, however, he also says: he prevented his firearm from being taken away from him. </p>
<p>It almost sounds like Robert Jr. is saying that the struggle between the two men was over the gun, since Zimmerman was ultimately able to hold of to and prevent Trayvon from taking it away from him (his statement does not seem to make sense unless the two men had spent some time struggling over the gun, during that 1 minute gap between Zimmermans 911 call and the arrival of the police. Of course, nobody knows for sure how much time passed between the time Zimmerman hung up and the time of his confrontation with Trayvon, or how long the struggle between them lasted). </p>
<p>Both of Robert Jrs statements could support a self-defense argument for Trayvon. Especially given Trayvons phone call with his girlfriend. After Trayvon asked Zimmerman why he was following him Zimmermans response was, What are you doing here? followed immediately by some sort of physical contact (the provocation?) that caused Trayvons phone to disconnect. </p>
<p>That provocation could have been Zimmerman, reaching for his phone at that moment, just as Robert Jr said, and, given Zimmermans initial greeting, Trayvon could easily have believed that Zimmerman was reaching for a gun. Or perhaps the story about trying to call 911 again is just astory, and the provocation was Zimmerman reaching for his gun which then led to the struggle, as inferred by Robert Jr. </p>
<p>But something happened AT THAT MOMENT to provoke one of them. It would not be unreasonable to believe that it was a movement by Zimmerman, reaching eithr for a phone or a gun, that provoked Trayvon, if, indeed, Trayvon was the initial agressor. Unless, of course, the provocation could have commenced with Zimmermans initial - threatening? - words.</p>
<p>^thinking about your scenario, just a thought, why would Z call the police AGAIN? that may sound silly, but he had already alerted the PD, they were on their way, if he wasn’t up for intervening on his own, why follow Trayvon at all, why not simply remain in his car, or watch from a distance. Once he decided to follow Trayvon and question him, why call the police at that point, what would he say to the police, “yup the guy I said is suspicious is REALLY suspicious, he won’t answer my questions, get here even faster”</p>
<p>I imagine Z to have been experiencing heightened anxiety/adrenaline based on his (biased and inaccurate) perception of a suspicious person, in addition to what I suspect was his own need to control, and be aggressive, seriously who doesn’t abide by the police dispatch telling him not to follow T(yep I believe he had a penchant for aggressive behavior based on his criminal record). </p>
<p>I think Z may have pulled out the gun as a threatening and intimidating gesture and at that point of course Trayvon is standing HIS ground accurately fearing for HIS life. Based on what we know, (I know all the facts are not in) but we do know a bit, I think Z was the aggressor by pulling the gun. The best predictor of violence is past violence. It is documented that Z had this history, and those are the cases we know about, with a father as a judge who knows all that he was involed in when he was Trayvon’s age and everything can be sealed. Trayvon on the other hand had NO such violent record.</p>
<p>The more I think about this case, it appears to be a very tragic example of a self fulfilling prophecy…Z anticipated Trayvon was up to no good and a likely criminal, and even though Z had NO reason to think this he behaved in a manner where HE created a situation where he could respond to this imagined threat. Even if Trayvon punched and pummeled him, I believe it was bc Trayvon felt his own life was threatened. Z created the scenario completely. Other posters have also mentioned how powerful fear and possibly hate is in creating tragic outcomes…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe we have a fairly small time window. All the 911 calls are logged as to time, and the screaming and shot are audible on one of them. So someone can crosslink when Zimmerman made his last call, and when the shot occurred.</p>
<p>I wonder what Zimmerman thought he would do when he caught up with Trayvon Martin. Maybe if he was reaching for his phone, he wanted to call the police to tell them to come and arrest Trayvon Martin. For menacingly carrying Skittles and iced tea, I guess.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I specifically said if I was faced in a similar situation as what happened in this very case we’re discussing here. </p>
<p>If someone with a gun was sticking me up for cash, I have no problems giving it up. </p>
<p>Moreover, unless my “offending them” is threatening their life or I’m on their property and not on active legally sanctioned business(i.e. serving legal papers)…they have no business pulling out their gun in the first place. After all…I can’t “stop offending them” when it may be the very act of performing my job…especially on behalf of the legal system. </p>
<p>In short, I’m mainly talking about the “if the guy is intending to kill me or others scenario”…especially since there have been several instances of murderous sociopaths randomly murdering people for no explicable reasons…including their being “offended” by their victims. </p>
<p>From what I’ve seen from the reports on this case…it is reasonable that Martin may have perceived Z as a obsessive threatening belligerent stalker who revealed himself to be a possible murderous sociopath intent on ending his life no matter what as soon as he drew the gun…so he needed to try to disarm him ASAP to maximize his already limited chances of survival.</p>
<p>Why do some of you think that Trayvon’s refusal to explain himself to Zimmerman (if in fact he did refuse) was somehow suspicious or provocative? As cobrat says, think about it from Trayvon’s point of view – you’re walking home from the store, early in the evening, bothering no one, and suddenly you’re chased and then accosted by a nut who demands to know what you’re doing. How would any of us have responded? As has been said before, in this situation, I really believe that SYG applied to Trayvon, who would have been quite correct in believing his life was in danger. </p>
<p>Of course, Trayvon may very well have told Z the simple truth: “I’m going home.” I think it’s entirely plausible that as far as Z was concerned, in his obviously agitated state, no answer would have been good enough.</p>
<p>
Logically he would want to “detain” Trayvon until the police showed up. If Trayvon tried to leave or run, it’s quite possible that Zimmerman’s next step would be to draw his weapon to try to “hold” Trayvon at gunpoint.</p>
<p>^^ If the purpose of the gun was to (illegally) detain Trayvon, then it wouldn’t have been fired unless Trayvon escaped Z’s “custody.” That would have meant a shot in the back. Trayvon was shot in the chest.</p>
<p>I think it’s pretty well established that Z was reckless … reckless to assume Martin was up to no good, reckless to be armed (he wasn’t on watch that evening), reckless to leave his vehicle, reckless to pursue, reckless to ignore police instructions, reckless to confront Martin, reckless to be unable to defend himself, reckless to believe he could defend his firearm.</p>
<p>As for the rest, I’m sure forensics and expert testimony will provide sufficient evidence to decide, one way or the other. We may never know for sure what thought or movement caused Z to shoot, but I believe we’ll be able to determine whether the shooting was done in a legal manner … or not.</p>
<p>In one of the 911 calls, Z and the dispatcher started to arrange for him to meet the police in front of the mailboxes at the entry to the gated community, but Z changed his mind and said that the police should call him when they got there to find out where he was. He could have tried to make another 911 call to let the dispatcher/police know his location, especially if he was trying to hold Trayvon there.</p>
<p>It certainly seems that there will be enough evidence for a jury to make a judgment about whether or not the shooting was justified under the SYG law. If it was, then clearly repealing this law in FL and other states where it is in force should be a high priority. Any law that makes it possible for Z to do what he did (I’m only referring to the established facts now) is an abomination.</p>
<p>
You don’t know that.</p>
<p>
So you can read minds? Quite a talent. You can’t know what someone’s intent is, so the only responsible thing to do is play the odds and give up whatever is being asked for as your best hope of survival. Being provocative is almost never a wise idea.</p>
<p>Have any of Z’s relatives or surrogates explained what in Trayvon’s behavior made Z think that he was “on drugs” and “up to no good”?</p>
<p>I’m just wondering what other things are being accepted as fact based on media coverage are actually not true. Did you see the “apology” from NBC News? I think everyone should take a large breath and wait.</p>
<p>I don’t blame Trayvon one bit. i don’t care if he did have a criminal record, or if he attacked Zimmerman. He was a child, and some stranger was following him-he had to have been nervous,and hiding and then jumping the hunter is not something that is out of the possibility. Plus, Z had no idea whether the youngster he was tracking was a criminal or an innocent, and he should have treated him as the former.</p>
<p>But the case is being tried in the media courts with all sorts of false information given. I don’t think, given current FL law, that Z could have rightfully been charged. There was a recommendation to charge him, he was handcuffed and processed as a criminal up until the asst DA’s perusal of what happened was decided that there was no case. There is no love for Hispanics in Florida, so if he could have been charged, and still, if he could readily be charged, Z would be.</p>
<p>This is a tragedy. My heart goes out to parents of that child. </p>
<p>Still lynch mob mentality is not right either, and, yes, it is there. $10K bounty on Z’s head, incorrect, inflamatory news and announcements, when address of Z’s parents supposedly was given, those at that address were deluged with threates. That is lynch mob.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Illegal and goes far beyond the standard job description of many neighborhood watch groups associated with the national neighborhood watch association. </p>
<p>That description is strictly to watch from a safe distance and phone in any suspicious persons/activities to local law enforcement…and let them handle any questionings/confrontations. </p>
<p>Trying to detain someone goes far beyond all that. More importantly, I’m not sure what’s the state of the laws in Sanford…but in most neighborhood watch associations my friends and relatives have been part of…including in Florida, doing what Z did would have been a direct violation of their volunteer guidelines which would have prompted expulsion. There’s no place for a wannabe cop in those neighborhood watch groups.</p>