• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Justice Department, FBI to probe shooting death of Florida teen

va_tazdad

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
1,162
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
It never is

This is not about Sharpton, this is about a person that chose to confront a teenager walking through the neighbor and ending up shooting him for what appears unjustified reasons. IMHO

It never is about Big Al, but you can bet he will turn it into being about him.

Sharpton is a racist pig that has lied and been busted for it many times.

Only a fool listens to the idiot.
 

lowlux

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
52
Location
a
seen a few reports that 1 or 2 witness seen the black kid on top of Zimmerman while beating the hell out of him, It was zimmerman screaming for help, that explains the blood on the back of his head and the bloody or broken nose.

This kid was a football player, that photo was when he was 8, He could have out ran Zimmerman fat ass easily, but choose to tackle him.
 
Last edited:

lowlux

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
52
Location
a
there are about 300+ out of state black people in the town right now, We could have a 1990s LA style riot if they don't convict him, Which i don't think they will or can.
 

Xulld

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
159
Location
Florida
I posted this in the other thread.

What I have learned about this case so far:
Z = Zimmerman M= Martin

Just the facts as we know it.

1) Z called the police to report a suspicious person. Was told it was not needed to follow him, and said "ok" in response.
2) M saw that someone was following him and was on the phone with his girlfriend who has corroborated that M ran, and lost site of Z.
3) Z while on the phone with Non-Emergency police line said he lost the kid.
4) At some point later 911 calls roll in, and a direct witness comes outside to see M on top of Z and Z crying for someone to help him. This is recorded on another persons 911 call.
5) Z claims M confronted him and attacked him, got him on his back and would not relent the attack after Z, and a neighbor yelled for him to stop.
6) The eye witness did not see the beginning of the fight, and went inside before the end of the confrontation and never saw the gun in play, within 30 seconds of the witness going inside the shot is heard.
7) Z was bleeding from the back of his head, from his nose, and had grass stains on his back. (no info on any possible injuries for M, coroners report would provide this once it is available)
8) All of the facts have not been made public, but all of the original witness statements corroborate Z's statement (per the police). (except for the people like Cruncher who changed there story days later)

This is all we the public know at this time, and it is why probable cause for Z's arrest has not been established. The biggest problem with trying to judge this case is the huge gap in knowledge between #3, and #5. Which is where all of the real legal questions live. Police may have more information than this, but so far no arrest, which makes me believe if there is additional info, it is not anything which contradicts Z's account.
 
Last edited:

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
I really don't understand how the stand your ground law could possibly cover Zimmerman when Zimmerman was the one who stalked and murdered the teenager... the teenager would be the one that would be covered under the stand your ground law since he was being stalked by an armed murderer, he had the right to defend himself... Zimmerman did not have the right to stalk and murder the kid. I just don't understand why Zimmerman would in any way, shape or form be shielded from prosecution by that law. Maybe someone can explain it to me.

Was Zimmerman at a location he was not legally supposed to be? No, so he's still covered under SYG. Did Zimmerman initiate the actual physical confrontation or otherwise provoke his attacker? We don't know and as such we can't say that he broke the law. Following someone on public property isn't illegal and until it can be reasonably shown that Zimmerman broke a law he is innocent.

And that's the question. Who initiated the physical contact? Given the condition that Zimmerman was in (grass stains on his back, bleeding from neck and nose) it is obvious that he was attacked. Currently there is no clear evidence to show that he attacked Martin and that Martin gained the upper hand on his attacker. As such there is no legal way to say that Zimmerman broke any laws in defending himself. I'm also yet to see a recent picture of Martin to determine if he would be a credible threat or not to Zimmerman as the only picture I've seen of Martin looked like he was 14 tops when we know that Martin was in fact 17. But we do know that Martin was a football player and thus physically fit enough to "potentially" be a threat.
 

ccwinstructor

Centurion
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
919
Location
Yuma, Arizona, USA
Trayvon Martin was 6 foot 3 inches tall

Now we have learned that Trayvon Martin was 6 foot 3 inches tall. At least at one time, he was a football player.

While this does not show who started the altercation, it undercuts the narrative that the MSM is pushing, that a large white racist pursued a small black boy, beat him, and shot him.
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
Debate raging about Treyvon Martin case; Was ‘SYG’ law even relevant?

While the broader public debate is raging over the slaying of Treyvon Martin in Florida and whether this was because of the “Stand-Your-Ground” law, gun rights activists across the map are focusing on a different question, whether the law is even relevant in this case.

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-...treyvon-martin-case-was-syg-law-even-relevant
 

ccwinstructor

Centurion
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
919
Location
Yuma, Arizona, USA

arentol

New member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
383
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
I posted this in the other thread.

What I have learned about this case so far:
Z = Zimmerman M= Martin

Just the facts as we know it.

1) Z called the police to report a suspicious person. Was told it was not needed to follow him, and said "ok" in response.
2) M saw that someone was following him and was on the phone with his girlfriend who has corroborated that M ran, and lost site of Z.
3) Z while on the phone with Non-Emergency police line said he lost the kid.
4) At some point later 911 calls roll in, and a direct witness comes outside to see M on top of Z and Z crying for someone to help him. This is recorded on another persons 911 call.
5) Z claims M confronted him and attacked him, got him on his back and would not relent the attack after Z, and a neighbor yelled for him to stop.
6) The eye witness did not see the beginning of the fight, and went inside before the end of the confrontation and never saw the gun in play, within 30 seconds of the witness going inside the shot is heard.
7) Z was bleeding from the back of his head, from his nose, and had grass stains on his back. (no info on any possible injuries for M, coroners report would provide this once it is available)
8) All of the facts have not been made public, but all of the original witness statements corroborate Z's statement (per the police). (except for the people like Cruncher who changed there story days later)

This is all we the public know at this time, and it is why probable cause for Z's arrest has not been established. The biggest problem with trying to judge this case is the huge gap in knowledge between #3, and #5. Which is where all of the real legal questions live. Police may have more information than this, but so far no arrest, which makes me believe if there is additional info, it is not anything which contradicts Z's account.

Where can we find a specific statement supporting 4 and 5? I haven't been following this case for long, but in the little bit of research I have done I haven't found a first-hand, or even second-hand, source for this so far.

Another thing to keep in mind is this:

Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 784
ASSAULT; BATTERY; CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE

View Entire Chapter
784.011 Assault.—
(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
(2) Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree,

It sounds like Z is likely guilty of Assault. 911 call establishes his actions were intentional. Following someone relentlessly when they have a legal right to be where they are located, running after them when they try to get away from you as you follow them, continuing to search for them after they run away, and approaching them in a threatening manner is an unlawful threat by act to do violence to that person. Being 100 lbs heavier is having the apparent ability to harm them. The following relentlessly situation creates a well founded fear in that person. Trayvon's girlfriend can establish this fear by Trayvon's statements to her about the man and being afraid of him. His decision to run shows he was indeed afraid of imminent harm. Approaching the person in late evening after all that following makes the general well-founded fear imminent as well.

It is legal to physically defend yourself in such an Assault situation if you can't reasonably escape. Given he already tried to run and Z apparently had a car so he could always catch M, and given Z's greater weight, M is legally justified to preemptively physically defend himself by attacking Z and then trying to run away (AGAIN) after partially incapacitating Z. If all that is the case then Z, as the initiator of the criminal activity, can not legally defend himself with a firearm, unless M escalates the violence level by presenting a deadly weapon, and even then it would be highly questionable and should likely still result in a manslaughter charge.

Also Z has a massive problem in that he claims he was attacked from behind when he got out of his truck to see what street he was on...... So the NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH GUY who should know the neighborhood like the back of his hand has to get out of his truck to figure out where he is? Not at all believable. And then there is the even larger issue of Trayvon's GF saying she heard Z talking to M right before the physical altercation started. If the timeline and phone records establish this to be true then that means Z clearly and deliberately lied about being attacked from behind, and in that case he should be prosecuted even if he was ultimately losing a fist fight to M.

One other thing to keep in mind is that M was not committing any criminal act. So why was Z following him? Why was he approaching him and potentially assaulting him? I am sorry, but if you are armed and you escalate a non-criminal situation to the point of violence then you give up your right to use your firearm in self defense regardless of who hits who first. This is one of the core tenants of being a lawful carrier of a firearm. You instigate, you don't get to use the firearm. If you are armed you have an obligation to NOT escalate, and there is no doubt that Z escalated.
 
Last edited:

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
This is all we the public know at this time, and it is why probable cause for Z's arrest has not been established. The biggest problem with trying to judge this case is the huge gap in knowledge between #3, and #5. Which is where all of the real legal questions live. Police may have more information than this, but so far no arrest, which makes me believe if there is additional info, it is not anything which contradicts Z's account.
The gap between 3&5 becomes irrelevant if the rest of it is true. According to your list, Zimmerman attempted to deescalate the situation by pleading with Martin to stop. Martin did not and if it was true that Martin was beating Zimmerman's head against the ground, that is deadly force.

All this nonsense about weight and size is a red herring. Fight experience, ability and state of mind are far more important. A man is a considerable amount of fighting experience, is going to destroy a man with no fighting experience. If Martin was a football player, this would atleast indirectly be fighting experience. A young, in shape man is going to have better ability to fight than an older, out of shape man. An individual mentally prepared is going to have the upper hand over anyone that isn't. Size and weight don't matter, they can be a massive disadvantage in a fight if you do not know how to use it. A football player should know how to use size and weight to their advantage, including and perhaps especially their opponent's size and weight. A law student? Probably not so much. But for all I know Zimmerman could have been an all-star football player and an MMA expert.

But at the end of the day, none of it really matters. If Zimmerman was really on the ground, with Martin on top of him, bashing his head in with Zimmerman attempting to deescalate, then Zimmerman should still be protected under self defense laws.
 

j4l

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
fl
"Officers arrived on the scene at 7:17 p.m. ET, according to a police report.

Officers Timothy Smith and Ricardo Alayo said they noted a black male in a gray hooded sweatshirt lying face-down in the grass, as well as a white male in the area.

"Zimmerman stated that he had shot the subject and was still armed," Smith wrote in a police report.

Smith said he asked Zimmerman to hand over the weapon, a Kel Tec 9 mm, and handcuffed him.

"While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and he was covered in grass, as if he was laying on his back on the ground," Smith wrote in the police report. "Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and the back of the head."

The officers also made several attempts to revive Martin.

When police put Zimmerman in the back of the cruiser, he said, "I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me," according to the police report."


http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/20/911-calls-paint-picture-of-chaos-after-florida-teen-is-shot/

All the media emphasis seems to constantly try to portray it as M was the one yelling for help.
Far as Im concerned, Im with the cops on this one. If, for whatever reason, Z ended up on the ground being beaten- he was well within his rights to have gunned the punk down.
Whether or not he should have followed or chased the kid, however, is another matter entirely....
IF he was indeed in the wrong, then sure hang em out to dry.. but..

Did the kid have the right to be out there? Sure. Should he have been smart enough to consider the chance that being a black stranger in a mostly non-black gated-community would likely make locals suspicious of him? Common-sense seemed to have been missing on both sides of this one..
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Should he have been smart enough to consider the chance that being a black stranger in a mostly non-black gated-community would likely make locals suspicious of him?

????

No?

What the hell does the color of his skin have to do with it anyway? If he lives there, and anybody decides to be suspicious of him for "walking while black", that's on them.
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012
But one man's testimony could be key for the police.

"The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911," he said.

Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.

The witness only wanted to be identified as "John," and didn't not want to be shown on camera.

His statements to police were instrumental, because police backed up Zimmerman's claims, saying those screams on the 911 call are those of Zimmerman.

"When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point," John said.

Zimmerman says the shooting was self defense. According to information released on the Sanford city website, Zimmerman said he was going back to his SUV when he was attacked by the teen.

Sanford police say Zimmerman was bloody in his face and head, and the back of his shirt was wet and had grass stains, indicating a struggle took place before the shooting.
 
Last edited:

ccwinstructor

Centurion
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
919
Location
Yuma, Arizona, USA
Here is the statement from the Sanford City Manager

What of it? Doesn't mean anything. Certainly doesn't warrant calling the boy a thug.

It explains why George Zimmerman was not arrested:

Fellow Citizens:

There has been a lot of media attention to the recent incident where George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin. This is indeed a tragic situation and has caused a flood of questions and strong emotions from within our community, the region and nation. On behalf of the employees of the City of Sanford, Our deepest sympathy and prayers go out to the family and friends of Trayvon Martin. As a father, I can only image the pain Trayvon’s family must be going though. In an effort to continue to be as responsive as possible to the public seeking information on the incident, I have asked Chief Lee to provide answers to some of the most frequently asked questions regarding this matter. Below are his responses. Please understand that since this is still an ongoing investigation, the Police Department is limited in what information it can publicly release.

The City of Sanford is committed to insuring that justice is served and, therefore, the City of Sanford has contacted the United States Attorney General’s Office for assistance in this matter.

The men and women of the Sanford Police Department extend our heartfelt sympathies to the Martin family. This is indeed a tragic situation. The death of anyone due to violence, especially a 17 year old young man, is morally appalling. As this incident has generated a lot of media attention, we wanted to provide answers to some of the most frequently asked questions.

Why was George Zimmerman not arrested the night of the shooting?

When the Sanford Police Department arrived at the scene of the incident, Mr. Zimmerman provided a statement claiming he acted in self defense which at the time was supported by physical evidence and testimony. By Florida Statute, law enforcement was PROHIBITED from making an arrest based on the facts and circumstances they had at the time. Additionally, when any police officer makes an arrest for any reason, the officer MUST swear and affirm that he/she is making the arrest in good faith and with probable cause. If the arrest is done maliciously and in bad faith, the officer and the City may be held liable.

According to Florida Statute 776.032 : 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

Why weren’t the 911 tapes initially released?

There are exemptions to the public records laws for active criminal intelligence and for ongoing investigations. In this instance, the 911 calls made by neighbors in the subdivision, and the non- emergency call made by Mr. Zimmerman are all key to the investigation by Sanford Police Department. In consultation with the Office of the State Attorney, the Sanford police department had decided not to release the audio recordings of the 911 calls due to the ongoing investigation. Many times, specific information is contained in those recordings which is vital to the integrity of the investigation. At the time, it was determined that if revealed, the information may compromise the integrity of the investigation prior to its completion. The 911 tapes have since been released.

Why did Mr. Zimmerman have a firearm in his possession while acting in the role of a neighborhood watch member?

Mr. Zimmerman holds a concealed weapon permit issued from the State of Florida. He is authorized to carry the weapon in a concealed manner wherever Florida Statute dictates. Neighborhood Watch programs are designed for members of a neighborhood to be “eyes and ears” for police and to watch out for their neighbors. They are not members of the Police Department nor are they vigilantes. Training provided by law enforcement agencies to Neighborhood Watch organizations stresses non-contact surveillance of suspicious situations and notifying police of those situations so that law enforcement can respond and take control of the situation.

Mr. Zimmerman was not acting outside the legal boundaries of Florida Statute by carrying his weapon when this incident occurred. He was in fact on a personal errand in his vehicle when he observed Mr. Martin in the community and called the Sanford Police Department.

If Zimmerman was told not to continue to follow Trayvon, can that be considered in this investigation?

Yes it will; however, the telecommunications call taker asked Zimmerman “are you following him”. Zimmerman replied, “yes”. The call taker stated “you don’t need to do that”. The call taker’s suggestion is not a lawful order that Mr. Zimmerman would be required to follow. Zimmerman’s statement was that he had lost sight of Trayvon and was returning to his truck to meet the police officer when he says he was attacked by Trayvon.

Why was George Zimmerman labeled as “squeaky clean” when in fact he has a prior arrest history?

In one of the initial meetings with the father of the victim the investigator related to him the account that Mr. Zimmerman provided of the incident. At that time the investigator said that Mr. Zimmerman portrayed himself to be “squeaky clean”. We are aware of the background information regarding both individuals involved in this event. We believe Mr. Martin may have misconstrued this information. What about media reenactments of the shooting incident? Any media reenactments of the shooting incident are purely speculation. To date the Sanford Police Department has not released any rendition of the events of the evening to anyone other than the Office of the State Attorney. The renditions we have seen are not consistent with the evidence in this case.

The Sanford Police Department has conducted a complete and fair investigation of this incident. We have provided the results of our investigation to the Office of the State Attorney for their review and consideration for possible criminal prosecution.

Although the Police Department is the target of the troubling questions, let me assure you we too feel the pain of this senseless tragedy that has dramatically affected our community. Therefore, as we move forward and strive to answer the questions that are a point of controversy in the community, we ask for your patience, understanding and assistance in getting the correct information to the community.

Thank you,

Norton N. Bonaparte, Jr., ICMA-CM City Manager March 19, 2012

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2862657/posts
 

j4l

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
fl
????

No?

What the hell does the color of his skin have to do with it anyway? If he lives there, and anybody decides to be suspicious of him for "walking while black", that's on them.

Well, here;s the thing: right or wrong, like it or not- the kid did NOT reside there. Was not a normal element in the area, and as such stood out to locals who DO reside there. He was visiting a relative. Those relatives may well be known to their neighbors, but this kid -clearly-was NOT recognized by someone who probably has a much, much better idea of who's normally wandering within the gates of his community than you, me or the media, No? Basic common-fng-sense.

Within such a community-again, like it or not- someone who does not "belong" in the area is usually noticed.
Depending on one's perceptions of the appearance, and behaviors of the person being noticed, less-than-pleasant encounters can ensue- regardless of color/etc.

The same situations work in reverse- whether you, me, or the media, like it or not, if I were to go strutting around certain neighborhoods in this area-which are inhabbited by folks of another race/ethnic/national make-up, I would stand out, be noticed, and likely confronted-if not by the locals, then by the cops. And they would likely demand, and frankly, have every right and reason to do so, to know why I was there.
And that's the polite version. It is highly unlikely I'd live to complain about it.
 
Top