• 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.

Feds to investigate fatal shooting of Florifda teen

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
So glad the federal government is involved. They're better, and smarter, and will pursue justice at whatever cost.

Too bad for the shooter. He's already been convicted in the media and in public opinion whether he deserved it or not, and we'll probably never know what happened. In which case, the shooter needs to remain free.
 

mavidal

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2009
Messages
74
Location
Miami, Florida, United States
Thanks for posting that. Since all we have down here is leftist news, I did not want to pass judgement, but I still don't think it was a good shoot. I hope for Zimmerman's case, that the fact vindicate him, or the anti's will have a field day with this. That is my biggest concern. You know, this could have been me dealing with a miscreant in my neighborhood. I am not saying that Trayvon is a miscreant. I would like to know what the hell he got suspended from school for.

Mike V.
 

Japle

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2009
Messages
74
Location
Viera, Florida, USA
I’ve been watching this on the local news. There’s very little that’s remotely factual being reported and a ton of hysteria and videos of outraged people waving signs. Al Sharpton is now involved, which does nothing good for the credibility of the sign-wavers.

From what I can tell, the kid was, at most, committing a misdemeanor. Under Florida law, the use of deadly force is not justified in a case that doesn’t involve a well founded fear of imminent death or great bodily harm from a forcible felony. Unless the Grand Jury is persuaded that Zimmerman reasonably believed he was faced with that threat, he’s going to be facing some very serious charges.

The TV reporters are talking Grand Jury, but I can’t tell if they actually know something or they’re just speculating. If it goes to a Grand Jury, I expect an indictment and a trial, unless Zimmerman takes a plea. With all the screaming, a plea offer might be politically impossible. With Florida’s mandatory sentencing laws, Zimmerman may well die in prison.
 

the_hustleman

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Messages
77
Location
Atlanta
So glad the federal government is involved. They're better, and smarter, and will pursue justice at whatever cost.

Too bad for the shooter. He's already been convicted in the media and in public opinion whether he deserved it or not, and we'll probably never know what happened. In which case, the shooter needs to remain free.

Why should the shooter remain free?

There's no good reason for him to NOT be locked up.

He shouldn't have even confronted the kid, let alone SHOT an unarmed kid.

The guy should be charged with murder, he killed a kid that wasn't a threat to his life, and if he was, it was because HE created the situation.

*swyped from the evo so excuse any typos*
 

Tactical9mm

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
138
Location
Manchester, New Hampshire
We all know what "self defense" means, and as citizens who carry we should already be very aware when lethal force is and is not appropriate. Regardless of where we live in the country, if you are the initial aggressor of a situation that results in you shooting someone, I'm fairly sure the local law would not call it self-defense.

Recent reports in the media suggest the kid that was shot was on his cell phone with his girlfriend during the encounter with the shooter. He was being followed/pursued by the shooter, and was attempting to lose the guy.

All the facts are not in yet, and by no means am I trying to say what happened. Just saying what I'm hearing.

The 911-operator told the shooter not to confront the kid, and he still did. He went out of way to do so.

Bottom line, the kid was unarmed and got shot. Not good publicity for the 2nd amendment community.
 

the_hustleman

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Messages
77
Location
Atlanta
We all know what "self defense" means, and as citizens who carry we should already be very aware when lethal force is and is not appropriate. Regardless of where we live in the country, if you are the initial aggressor of a situation that results in you shooting someone, I'm fairly sure the local law would not call it self-defense.

Recent reports in the media suggest the kid that was shot was on his cell phone with his girlfriend during the encounter with the shooter. He was being followed/pursued by the shooter, and was attempting to lose the guy.

All the facts are not in yet, and by no means am I trying to say what happened. Just saying what I'm hearing.

The 911-operator told the shooter not to confront the kid, and he still did. He went out of way to do so.

Bottom line, the kid was unarmed and got shot. Not good publicity for the 2nd amendment community.


This.


No reason that guy shouldn't have been locked up mm.


*swyped from the evo so excuse any typos*
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
Why should the shooter remain free?

There's no good reason for him to NOT be locked up.

He shouldn't have even confronted the kid, let alone SHOT an unarmed kid.

The guy should be charged with murder, he killed a kid that wasn't a threat to his life, and if he was, it was because HE created the situation.

*swyped from the evo so excuse any typos*

You don't know the facts. We don't lock people up because the media ****** say so. I'm inclined to first believe the opposite. All we know is a guy killed an unarmed kid. Cops do this daily.

Murder? Have you ever heard of something called mens rea?
 

Xulld

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
159
Location
Florida
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 sad "ok" in response.
2) M saw that someone was following him and was on the phone with his girlfriend who has coroborated 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. (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:

the_hustleman

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Messages
77
Location
Atlanta
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 sad "ok" in response.
2) M saw that someone was following him and was on the phone with his girlfriend who has coroborated 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. (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.

Despite witness accounts of M calling for help, not Z?

It isn't self defense when YOU seek out the confrontation.

He shouldn't have approached the kid, and if you were doing nothing wrong and someone ran up on you, you wouldn't be the kindest person in the world I'm sure, especially someone you don't know.

Also, even if m beat him up, who started the confrontation?

Z


*swyped from the evo so excuse any typos*
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
More info, better analysis

Hey, Mods - Let's please use those forum tools and MERGE these threads so we're not repeating ourselves five time over, ok? Thanks!

Onward...

Article: Obama gets personal over killing of black Florida teenager

What an immoral opportunist Obama must be! Here are some FACTS, directly from the police report, the media keeps either getting wrong or simply ignores:

1. The pictures repeatedly displayed by the media are when the kid was 14. Trayvon isn't a kid. He was 17 when he attacked Zimmerman and no longer looked "sweet and innocent" as the media keeps deceptively portraying.

2. Trayvon was on a 5-day suspension from school for ...you guessed it... fighting.

3. Trayvon was 6'2" and a high school football player, a stature and occupation even I would find physically intimidating.

4. According to the police report, Zimmerman's back was sopping wet from where he'd been on his back, in the grass, as Trayvon pummeled his face with blows from his fists. Zimmerman's nose was bloodied, as was the back of his head, from where Trayvon had repeatedly slammed struck him in the face and slammed his head into the ground.

5. Again, according to the police report, the eyewitness observed Trayvon sitting on top of Zimmerman, bludgeoning him repeatedly as Zimmerman screamed for help. The eyewitness headed inside to call 911, heard a gunshot, and looked out the window to see Trayvon lying on the ground, apparently dead.

Conclusions, based on BEHAVIOR, rather than racism, very misleading media portrayals, and family bias:

A. Whether Zimmerman initially approached Trayvon or not is immaterial.

B. What's material is Trayvon's BEHAVIOR, namely, his aggravated assault against Zimmerman immediately prior to the shooting, and Zimmerman's firing of his weapon thus ending the assault.

C. The police department hasn't pressed charges as this is clearly and undeniably (unless you're a racist idiot or member of the biased media) an act of justifiable homicide required as last resort means of self defense.

Let's examine what would have happened if Zimmerman has NOT shot Trayvon:

a. The athletic but violently out of control 17-year-old would have beaten Zimmerman into unconsciousness or even death.

b. If he'd only beaten Zimmerman into unconsciousness, Trayvon could very well have taken Zimmerman's gun, at which point we would now have an armed felon running around, or Trayvon could have shot Zimmerman at which point we would have had a muderering armed felon running around.

What DID NOT happen: Zimmerman did NOT chase Trayvon down and shoot him. If he had, he'd be behind bars and awaiting charges or at least a hearing.

Here's what else IS true: Obama is a reprehensible opportunist praying on the black and minority communities in the midst of this tragedy to engender support for reelection.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
Hey, Mods - Let's please use those forum tools and MERGE these threads so we're not repeating ourselves five time over, ok? Thanks!

Onward...

4. According to the police report, Zimmerman's back was sopping wet from where he'd been on his back, in the grass, as Trayvon pummeled his face with blows from his fists. Zimmerman's nose was bloodied, as was the back of his head, from where Trayvon had repeatedly slammed struck him in the face and slammed his head into the ground.

5. Again, according to the police report, the eyewitness observed Trayvon sitting on top of Zimmerman, bludgeoning him repeatedly as Zimmerman screamed for help. The eyewitness headed inside to call 911, heard a gunshot, and looked out the window to see Trayvon lying on the ground, apparently dead.

Conclusions, based on BEHAVIOR, rather than racism, very misleading media portrayals, and family bias:

A. Whether Zimmerman initially approached Trayvon or not is immaterial.


How is it "immaterial?"

Isn't this going to be a situation where both sides claim "self-defense?"

If some odd-looking non-uniformed stranger starts appoaching/following/pursuing an unarmed and totally law-abiding 17-year old without any discernible reason, is it reasonable that the pursued might think that the pursuer might be dangerous? That he might even have a gun or something? And having a gun or something might mean that the stranger is DANGEROUS?

And that therefore, flight is a good tactic to get away from the pursuer?

And if flight fails, wouldn't it be reasonable for the pursued to turn and fight? In self-defense?


I remember an old saying about self-defense someone posted here a while back:

When threatened, flee. When cornered, kill.

Didn't Trayvon Martin have a right to defend himself from a potentially homicidal attacker?
 

Stanley

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
375
Location
Reston, VA
Here's what else IS true: Obama is a reprehensible opportunist praying on the black and minority communities in the midst of this tragedy to engender support for reelection.

How is it that MANY politicians have been weighing in on this but only Obama is wrong for doing so?

This would make YOU an opportunist as well. Using any little thing to try and tear down the president you don't like.

Don't tell us Obama is preying on us. We'll tell you if we think he is.

Seriously... LOL
 
Last edited:

Stanley

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
375
Location
Reston, VA
Didn't Trayvon Martin have a right to defend himself from a potentially homicidal attacker?

Hey, he was black, wearing a hoodie, out at night and a "violent, football player" according to many people here.

That apparently is enough to justify deadly force...

<sarcasm>
Though it is progress.

60 years ago these same people would be satisfied with just the "he's black" part... </sarcasm>
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Regardless of where we live in the country, if you are the initial aggressor of a situation that results in you shooting someone, I'm fairly sure the local law would not call it self-defense.

In Virginia, any person may legitimately make a claim of self-defense, so long as they evinced meaningful intent to escape or cease the altercation beforehand, and were subject to potentially deadly force even after having done so. This is true for the initial aggressor as well.
 
Last edited:

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
Japle said:
Under Florida law, the use of deadly force is not justified in a case that doesn’t involve a well founded fear of imminent death or great bodily harm from a forcible felony.
HankT said:
Isn't this going to be a situation where both sides claim "self-defense?"
If witnesses come forward to say that Z did something to threaten M, put him in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm (DOGBH), M had the right to defend himself.

That stops when Z is no longer a threat, either by giving up (yelling for M to stop) or being in a position (on his back on the ground) where he can't harm M.

IMHO (IANAL,NDIPOOTV) if Z did something to threaten M M was right in defending himself.

Since M was obviously (witness statements) assaulting Z, past Z giving up the fight or being a threat, M became the attacker.

the_hustleman said:
The guy should be charged with murder, he killed a kid that wasn't a threat to his life, and if he was, it was because HE created the situation.
You think that someone that size & athletic ability, sitting on top of someone probably at least twice his age, beating him & pounding his head into the ground is somehow not a threat?

And see above about Z regaining his right to self-defense by withdrawing from the fight.
 
Top