Trayvon Martin Shooting Part 3: Charges have been laid.

According to what little evidence/rumor we have at this time....Zimmerman did nothing but follow a guy on the street, loose sight of him then turn around and get Attacked from behind. According to all the statements to date, it looks more and more like Martin attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman stood his ground.

So far, it all points to Zimmerman defending himself. The fact that he did so effectively does not diminish his right to do so.

There's no evidence Zimmerman was attacked from behind, or beat-up as much as he claimed.

And the police have looked heavily in cover-up mode, starting with not testing Zimmerman for drugs & alcohol as they were supposed to. Not to mention the arresting officer has been involved in a coverup before.


.

You really think this is because of the BP? Really?

That's pretty bad even for you.


The BP were just trying to hitch a ride on the wave of perfectly legitimate anger that'd be justified if there was no racial injustice issues involved at all.

That's... his claim, and it's arguable whether 'all evidence' points to it.

I don't see any reason why not to put that claim before a jury rather than take his word for it, considering there was the suspicious circumstance of him pursuing Trayvon to begin with.

If there was any credible evidence that Martin was the aggressor, the prosecutor wouldn't be going after second-degree murder charges. That's a severe charge (stiffest in Florida short of a capital crime that gets mandatory life or death) with a severe penalty and is comparatively difficult to prove. It also apparently is fought vigorously in Florida because it's a no-bail offense, where you have to prove you deserve bail instead of being entitled to bail. Fights gone wrong are manslaughter, not second-degree murder.

Also, statements by this clown's former attorneys or his father that he was attacked by some vicious black are not evidence. Quite literally in this case - lay witnesses only gets to testify about what they observed.

Well for one, following somebody in public is perfectly legal. Second, it's what captains in the neighborhood watch do. Third, good luck finding an impartial jury to hear the case. In the eyes of half the country Zimmerman has already been convicted. As far as they're concerned he hunted down an innocent young minority schoolboy and brutally shot and killed him for shitts and giggles because in their minds, anyone who kills a minority MUST harbor some deep seeded racial hatred.

Only until the point where you start interacting with them. Then it can become illegal in a hurry.

No, it very much is not.

With a gun, after the police had advised him not to.

It is legal, but it is certainly suspicious.

This, mind you, would have never happened if the police had, y'know, done their jobs to start with.


If you cover something up, people assume you aren't doing it because someone's innocent. With proper police action this never would've become a big thing. He'd be arrested, investigated, it'd be far easily to find an unbiased jury, etc. etc..

Whatever you think of the final result, the police definitely acted improperly.

They didn't at first.

Then the media started showing pictures of Martin when he was 13 and people all over got all up in arms that such a nice young man was killed, by (picture of Zimmerman looking not so great) this asshole.

Oldest trick in the book, aim as high as you possibly can and settle for manslaughter. Prosecution is going to have one hell of a time proving premeditation since (assuming Zimmerman was actually looking to go gun down a random minority) this is about the worst possible setup a sane person could come up with. If you're going to go shoot someone, you shoot them and walk away, you don't go looking to gun them down in your own neighborhood and wait around to turn yourself in to the cops.

Here is what happened, according to what little we have:
1. Zimmerman called 911, claiming he saw a kid acting suspiciously.
2. He declared that he was going to follow the kid and confront him.
3. The operator told him to NOT do that.
4. He defied the operator and confronted the kid anyways.
5. A confrontation of some sort ensued, which ended with him shooting the kid.

All of the above is verifiable evidence. The claims that he got attacked from behind are based off of Zimmerman's claims only, and evidence from witnesses and the phone logs dispute this. The claims that he was injured are not supported by what the tapes show.

Chasing after someone with a gun, is generally considered aggressive behavior.

What they do? What they do? Zimmerman self-appointed himself captain of the neighborhood watch. He has nothing to do with any official neighborhood watch. I might add that actual neighborhood watchmen specifically DON'T carry guns.

As I already noted, his record of dozens of 911 calls and scuffles with the law make it clear that Zimmerman was a ticking time bomb. Whether or not he is racist is not especially irrelevant. He killed the boy because he was a crazy guy with an obsession with being some kind of vigilante, not racism. That the police department chose to cover it up might be because of racism. However, I think it might have more to do with Zimmerman's judge father covering up for him, just like he did for Zimmerman's past problems with the law. Racism might have been a contributing factor to either, but I don't think it was the main factor for either.

Second-degree murder in Florida doesn't require premeditation. First-degree murder/capital murder does and that's probably why it isn't being charged. There's no way to prove his mental state beyond a reasonable doubt. Second-degree doesn't require that same showing.

And I will just point out that even the legal analysts on MSNBC this afternoon were rather stunned by the Special Prosecutor charging Murder in the 2nd rather than Manslaughter. She might well be able to get on Manslaughter conviction, but I don't see a jury coming back with Murder 2.

What is it with Florida prosecutors anyway? They did the same thing in the Casey Anthony case, overcharged and shot for the moon--and lost the whole kit-and-kaboddle because of their ego.

Master Arminas

It doesn't matter how nice or mean someone is. If a person initiates contact with someone else and kills them, then that person should be arrested and investigated.

If you go make contact with someone specifically while doing so, it is still suspicious.

'Legal' and 'not suspicious' are not synonyms.

Also, to prevent situations precisely like this, where an untrained person initiates an incident where an innocent person dies.

You said 'the police will always advise you not to confront' as if it excuses him from confronting, rather than it meaning exactly what it said- the police didn't want him to engage and he ignore their advisement.

It's much harder to support that assertion if the police are actually doing things properly. There'd certainly be no media circus.

If someone is arrested promptly and investigated properly, calls of coverup won't stick.

If there are clear signs of not doing the job properly and avoiding properly investigating, then it is a coverup and cops acting improperly whatever the true status of guilt or innocence is.

My point is that the prosecution is going to have to push for some form of diminished mental state on Zimmerman's part if they plan on spinning this as a racially motivated slaying. No sane person goes after someone under these circumstances.

Not quite.

2. The operator asked Zimmerman if he was following Martin. Zimmerman said yes. Nothing in the tape about confrontation.
3. The operator said, and I quote, Okay, we don't need you to do that. The operator did not instruct him to stop. The operator did not issue an order.
4. The segments of the tape immediately afterwards, show that Zimmerman quit following him and was arranging to meet the police at, I believe, to the best of my knowledge, the Club House.

You are assuming a lot here. Zimmerman had a legal and lawful concealed carry permit. He wasn't breaking the law by carrying a sidearm. And neither following someone, or confronting them--regardless of whether or not you are armed at the time--constitutes a crime.

Master Arminas

Racial motivation isn't part of the charge either. The second-degree charge is essentially "George Zimmerman just don't care," it doesn't require either him intending to kill or killing for a racial reason.

The prosecutor has access to all the evidence, including full versions of all audio recordings, Zimmerman's police interview and medical/autopsy reports. There could be something in there that either justifies the charge on its own or makes Zimmerman out to be a liar.

It still seems pretty clear to me that he was confronting him.

Provide a credible link for this. Actually, we really ought to compile what information exists on this and where, I find the whole matter rather confusing.

You are missing the point. The Stand Your Ground law exists to justify self-defense against someone confronting you. Zimmerman specifically chose to confront Martin. Therefore, the Stand Your Ground law is on Martin's side, not Zimmerman.

Or the completely non-biased elected lady from a county where a full third of her voters are black that was then appointed as Special Prosectuor by the Florida Governor is simply pandering to her constituents. She didn't convene a grand jury, after all. Perfectly legal and all in Florida, but a bit odd. Does she not trust the grand jury system to deliver her an indictment? Either way, she will win reelection because she can tell those voters, she fought to get justice for Trayvon!

Just saying.

Master Arminas

I agree their should be an investigation as with all deaths caused by someone else.

However you need a reason to arrest someone, ie a crime commited. Acting in self defence isn't a crime. That under massive public pressure he has been charged with a crime that most likely will not return a guilty verdict is just the public officals covering their asses by wasting the publics money and Zimmerman's time. Ass covering just like the police always telling you to run away and not stand up for your self or use your legal right to self defence.

I have no idea what you consider credible, but the entire 911 between Zimmerman and the dispatcher is on Youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgR7gCxXQYg Good audio quality.

Actually, the SYG law does not specify a 'confrontation'. If Martin threw the first punch, then SYG applies. If Zimmerman threw it, it doesn't. Here are the details on the exact nature of the Florida law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law. Now, the legislators may want to say after the fact that it doesn't apply, but as written it does; or rather it will if the judge says it does.

Master Arminas

So Zimmerman was following a guy in a truck, lost sight of him, and turned around to get attacked by Trayvon Martin, who is apparently some sort of super-assassin (you can tell because of the hoodie, and assassins wear hoodies, y'see?) but manages, somehow, to fight him off and shoot him once.

Since that means Trayvon is either an Assassin or a horror movie monster, you're right, Zimmerman can't be indicted on murder. That would require Trayvon to be dead, which he clearly isn't if Zimmerman is correct.

Of course, that means Zimmerman is so fucked, but hey. Them's the breaks.

...did you just cite Wikipedia for the 'details on the exact nature of the law'? }p

Determining whether something is self-defense in cases of doubt is still very much a case for a criminal court.


"They acted in self defenses" is often a conclusion reached at the end of a court case, not when decided whether or not to do an investigation, unless it's very clear-cut, which this was anything but.

Just like kinkade0001, you're using that as if it meant, 'they say to avoid contact, but they don't really mean it,' rather than, 'if you're told to avoid a confrontation and then you start one and someone gets hurt, that does not put you in a good position in the eyes of the law!'.

Is it not correct?

Master Arminas