Trayvon Martin case to go to grand jury, Fla. state attorney announces

[Young Drachma]

U.S. News - Trayvon Martin case to go to grand jury, Fla. state attorney announces (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/20/10775671-trayvon-martin-case-to-go-to-grand-jury-fla-state-attorney-announces)

A grand jury will investigate the death of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old shot to death in a gated community in Florida on Feb. 26, state attorney Norm Wolfinger announced Tuesday.

"I share in the desire of the family and the community to accurately collect and evaluate all the facts surrounding the tragic death of Trayvon Martin," Wolfinger said in a news release. "The public is entitled to no less than a thorough, deliberate, and just review of the facts. We intend to honor that commitment."


The shooting occurred February 26 when Zimmerman spotted Martin walking home from buying candy and iced tea at a convenience store.
Zimmerman, patrolling the neighborhood in his car, called the 911 emergency number and reported what he called "a real suspicious guy."

"This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about," Zimmerman told dispatchers, adding, "These @!$%#s. They always get away."
The dispatcher, hearing heavy breathing on the phone, asked Zimmerman: "Are you following him?"

"Yeah," Zimmerman said.

"Okay, we don't need you to do that," the dispatcher responded.
But several neighbors subsequently called 911 to report a scuffle between Zimmerman and Martin. While some of the callers were still on the phone, cries for help followed by a gunshot could be heard in the background.
"I recognized that (voice) as my baby screaming for help before his life was taken," Martin's mother, Sybrina Fulton, told Reuters.
“(Zimmerman) was reacting to the color of his skin,’’ Fulton, said Monday on NBC's Today show. “He committed no crime. My son wasn’t doing anything but walking on the sidewalk, and I just don’t understand why this situation got out of control.’’

'Stand your ground'
Police declined to arrest Zimmerman, citing Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, enacted in 2005 and now in effect in at least 16 other states.

Dubbed "Shoot first (ask questions later)" by opponents, the Florida law allows a potential crime victim who is "in fear of great bodily injury" to use deadly force in public places.

[spleen1015]

That is some fucked up shit.

[miked]

I think if we allow untrained people to walk the streets with firearms and give them immunity so long they think there is some threat, we are in big trouble as a society. What's troubling is that many other states feel it's ok for idiots to walk around with guns and "stand their ground" if they feel threatened.

[AENeuman]

Track, confront, shoot...reload. Horrible.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

The same police that didn't want to charge him told a witness that said she heard the kid crying for help that she was wrong & it was Zimmerman who was crying for help.

[Ksyrup]

I don't see how there was any argument that the guy was a potential crime victim in fear for his life. He was chasing someone who hadn't done anything to anyone yet.

I haven't closely followed this since the initial news reports, but part of the suspicion here is that I think one of the cops on the scene is alleged to have corrected or coaxed a witness to change their testimony. I believe it was about whose voice they heard crying for help. This whole thing smells pretty bad.

[Ksyrup]

The same police that didn't want to charge him told a witness that said she heard the kid crying for help that she was wrong & it was Zimmerman who was crying for help.

Beat me to it. That's what I recall reading.

[Crapshoot]

Jesus christ. I'm waiting for someone (JIMGA?) to come in and say that shooting some poor black kid was ok because of some trigger happy jerk.

[dacman]

This whole story reeks -- armed desperately wannabe cops don't make good neighborhood watchers.

I'm equally troubled by the police and/or prosecutors acting as judge and jury and determining it must've been self defense when there is plenty of evidence, trustworthy or not, to suggest it may not have been. Dude should've been arrested that very night. If a jury determines he did nothing wrong, so be it. This "stand your ground" business is being grossly overapplied here.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

http://www.lsnewsgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/trayvon_martin_zimmerman.jpg

The man on the left had a gun.

The kid on the right had a bag of skittles.

One of them cried for help.

The crying stopped when the one on the left shot the one on the right in the chest, killing him.

According to the police, it was self defense. The one on the left was crying for help. I guess he feared tasting the rainbow.

[Lathum]

Jesus christ. I'm waiting for someone (JIMGA?) to come in and say that shooting some poor black kid was ok because of some trigger happy jerk.

this thread will likely end badly

[mckerney]

Shooter of Trayvon Martin a habitual caller to cops - Miami-Dade - MiamiHerald.com (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/2700249_p3/shooter-of-trayvon-martin-a-habitual.html)

“We are taking a beating over this,” said Lee, who defends the investigation. “This is all very unsettling. I’m sure if George Zimmerman had the opportunity to relive Sunday, Feb. 26, he’d probably do things differently. I’m sure Trayvon would, too.”

Yeah, I'm sure if Trayvon had know what would happen he would've gone and been black somewhere else.

[spleen1015]

If I see those 2 people walking down the street, I'm more worried about the one on the left.

Just from those 2 pictures, unless the kid was the one with the gun, I don't see how the dude on the left could feel threaten by the kid.

Insane.

[Crapshoot]

this thread will likely end badly

I'd like to be proved wrong. History says someone at FOFC will justify it. :popcorn:

[gstelmack]

The fact that the guy was told to stop following the kid is going to make life pretty miserable going forward for him and the cops on the scene that declined to arrest him.

[Scoobz0202]

Don't be black in a gated community I guess :(

[Scoobz0202]

Trayvon Martin Exclusive: Friend on Phone with Teen Before Death Recalls Final Moments - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-death-friend-phone-teen-death-recounts/story?id=15959017#.T2i8bMUgcrU)

This video clip has the audio clip of Zimmerman saying, "These *expletive* always get away"

[Ksyrup]

I guess I equated this to the "get off my lawn" scenario a little too literally, because I expected George Zimmerman to be a old white guy with an NRA membership.

[mckerney]

I guess I equated this to the "get off my lawn" scenario a little too literally, because I expected George Zimmerman to be a old white guy with an NRA membership.

Nah, case of young racist asshole who couldn't become a cop but still fantasized about it. Thus 46 calls to the police in 15 months and carrying around a semi automatic handgun in a gated community.

[Crapshoot]

Nah, case of young racist asshole who couldn't become a cop but still fantasized about it. Thus 46 calls to the police in 15 months and carrying around a semi automatic handgun in a gated community.

46? Holy shit.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

The state attorney's office should also be investigating his relationship to the police department. He seems like quite a nuisance who repeatedly got to do whatever he wanted. He was even busted for resisting arrest & assaulting a cop in 2005 & had the charges dropped.

Something is rotten in the state of Florida.

[molson]

I'm equally troubled by the police and/or prosecutors acting as judge and jury and determining it must've been self defense when there is plenty of evidence, trustworthy or not, to suggest it may not have been. Dude should've been arrested that very night. If a jury determines he did nothing wrong, so be it. This "stand your ground" business is being grossly overapplied here.

I don't think anyone was saying "it must've been self defense", they just seemed wary to arrest based on what they had. But a grand jury now has it, which needs to happen before there can be a criminal case/trial anyway - I have no idea if Florida has preliminary hearings also, point is, the police don't have the power to make that call. They can arrest someone on suspicion of murder, and whether to arrest or not is always a judgment call based on public safety/civil liability risk, etc. It's not unusual at all that they'll hold off on the actual arrest, but may keep up a surveillance while the charging decisions/grand jury stuff is going on.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

If George Zimmerman had been the one laying on the ground with a hole in his chest & his only weapon a bag of skittles, Trayvon Martin would have been arrested and charged with murder.

[korme]

Please, please let this end the right way

[mckerney]

If George Zimmerman had been the one laying on the ground with a hole in his chest & his only weapon a bag of skittles, Trayvon Martin would have been arrested and charged with murder.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/84phU8of02U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

"This is America. Nobody deserves to be treated as a black man!"

[molson]

If George Zimmerman had been the one laying on the ground with a hole in his chest & his only weapon a bag of skittles, Trayvon Martin would have been arrested and charged with murder.

It's a popular thought but I don't know how we make that comparison. If there's a 17-year old black boy who is somehow an armed neighborhood watchman in a gated community and he has some kind of connection to law enforcement, and he shoots a 46-year old hooded Hispanic guy that was wandering around, and when questioned, the black boy says the Hispanic guy jumped him from behind when he was trying to track him down or something, would there be an immediate arrest? I think the police might refer that out for a charging decision before they arrest. Who knows though, everyone's speculating about people they know nothing about and what they'd do. Not all police or police departments are exactly the same, they're not all blinded by their racial prejudices believe it or not. Some surely are, but I don't think we can assume very single one always is.

[Julio Riddols]

This story has been boiling my blood for a week now, glad to see something is being done finally.. Now it better get done right. If this dude doesn't get convicted of first degree murder, there is going to be a serious backlash that might even trump the L.A. Riots.

Also, wtf is up with Florida? How do so many fucked up stories come from one specific state?

[sabotai]

Trayvon Martin Exclusive: Friend on Phone with Teen Before Death Recalls Final Moments - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-death-friend-phone-teen-death-recounts/story?id=15959017#.T2i8bMUgcrU)

From the article:

Nearly half a million people have signed an online petition on change.org urging law enforcement officials to step in and arrest Zimmerman, who violated major parts of the Neighborhood Watch Manual, which states "It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers. And they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles."


There are about 22,000 registered watch groups nationwide, and Zimmerman was not part of a registered group, which police were not aware of at the time of Martin's killing, said Chris Tutko, the director of the National Neighborhood Watch program.


(bolded mine)


So he wasn't actually in a real Neighborhood Watch program. Just some guy (or one of a group of people) walking around playing pretend.

[stevew]

Trayvon Martin Exclusive: Friend on Phone with Teen Before Death Recalls Final Moments - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-death-friend-phone-teen-death-recounts/story?id=15959017#.T2i8bMUgcrU)

This video clip has the audio clip of Zimmerman saying, "These *expletive* always get away"

I hate when they will describe someone getting shot and killed, but using the word "assholes" is off limits.

[Passacaglia]

Kinda rubs me the wrong way how they had to insert "ABC News" into the article a handful of times.

[molson]

OK, I spent 3 minutes researching the Florida Grand Jury process (slightly more difficult than just assuming I know everything like the media and many online commentators in this case, but I had at least 3 minutes to spare). In Florida, murder prosecutions must go through the grand jury, it's the only way initiate that charge. The grand jury, who are regular citizens, have some investigatory powers and they can "return a true bill", i.e., authorize a murder prosecution by majority vote. The state prosecution doesn't have to actually file an indictment after that, but they can't do it until the grand jury gives the OK. I may be missing some subtleties, and there may be some legit concerns with the police investigation prior to the grand jury getting the case, but I think the process is important to at least acknowledge before we hang the cops for not charging him with 1st degree murder the same day.

I wonder if they'll be able to definitively determine who is yelling for help on the 911 calls in the background, because the yelling goes on for a pretty long time. Like 20 seconds or something. If it's Zimmerman, he might have a pretty good self-defense case. Was there an altercation, a struggle for the gun? Even if Zimmerman was racially profiling, and stupidly approached the kid for no reason, I think he still has a legal right to defend himself if shit gets out of hand, depending on how Florida defines self defense. If they can prove it's Martin calling for help, Zimmerman's going to need a pretty elaborate and still somehow plausible story to avoid at least a manslaughter charge.

As far as the arrest decision that night - you can only look at what the police knew that night and what dispatch told them. The info was probably something along the lines of "suspicious young male in gated community" ("black" might have been in there too, but I didn't hear Zimmerman identify him by race on the 911 calls, but he may have).....when they get there, they find a guy who lives there, who identifies himself as a neighborhood watchman, who has killed the guy and has some self-defense story (that we don't know the details of yet). Maybe if it's a black night watchman, they'd arrest him anyway, who knows, but I'd say that'd be pretty risky from a liability perspective. I think the better course of action there would be to investigate and let that play out - normally, the night watchman at the gated community is not going to be a huge public safety risk, though in this case, maybe there there were some extra factors that show he could be....it's still at least a tough call IMO.

[mckerney]

I wonder if they'll be able to definitively determine who is yelling for help on the 911 calls in the background, because the yelling goes on for a pretty long time. Like 20 seconds or something. If it's Zimmerman, he might have a pretty good self-defense case. Was there an altercation, a struggle for the gun? Even if Zimmerman was racially profiling, and stupidly approached the kid for no reason, I think he still has a legal right to defend himself if shit gets out of hand, depending on how Florida defines self defense.

I would hope that this would not hold up as a valid self defense defense. I that case he walked up to someone on the street and pulled a gun on them with no provocation (other than being black, of course) and then shot them for defending themselves. It's no more self defense than a mugger shooting someone for fighting back.

[JediKooter]

I hope the state of Florida allows someone to leave their house and walk up to somebody and point a gun at them. Not sure if many states have that kind of law.

[molson]

I would hope that this would not hold up as a valid self defense defense. I that case he walked up to someone on the street and pulled a gun on them with no provocation (other than being black, of course) and then shot them for defending themselves. It's no more self defense than a mugger shooting someone for fighting back.

We don't know what his story is yet, if he pulled the gun on him or what. Though he did talk to police, so he's probably stuck with that story now, which would be bad for him if it doesn't hold up. Did he say anything about all those pleas for help we heard on the 911 calls? If he told the police the kid never said anything, and then the voice crying for help is determined to be the kid, then he's in trouble. (this is why criminals know not to talk to police - it's better to frame your story later, after the investigation, if ever, so your story isn't contradicted by later-discovered facts). But if Zimmerman's story was that Martin accosted him and got hold of his gun somehow, and that he (Zimmerman) was yelling for help for about 20 seconds as the struggle went on, then he’s got a little more credibility if the voice can be confirmed to be him calling for help.

[mckerney]

And the issue with the police isn't just a failure to arrest Zimmerman, they appeared to be covering up for him. They took his word completely and witnesses were either ignored or told they were wrong. When a witness told the police they had heard Trayvon scream for help they corrected the witness saying it was Zimmerman yelling for help.

[molson]

And the issue with the police isn't just a failure to arrest Zimmerman, they appeared to be covering up for him. They took his word completely and witnesses were either ignored or told they were wrong. When a witness told the police they had heard Trayvon scream for help they corrected the witness saying it was Zimmerman yelling for help.

That conversation is probably recorded somewhere so we'll see how it plays out. Maybe the cops all decided to cover it up, but maybe there was a miscommunication/police error. This stuff happens fast, and it's late at night. An particular officer may have believed that it was a legit self-defense thing, so when a witness said Martin called for help, the officer honestly thought that the witness misspoke and said, "you mean Zimmerman cried for help right"? If it was that kind of scenario, the officer could have been more open minded and precise, but it's a huge stretch to be alleging coverups and conspiracies at this point. Officers have thousands of conversations with all kinds of people, and a lot of it involves horrible stuff - it's not always as smooth and clean and to the point as we'd like, or as its portrayed on TV. Which makes it all the more important that arrests, and charging decisions aren't based on emotion, because that's when officers make mistakes and cities get sued for millions. If anyone consciously tried to cover this up just to protect Zimmerman (not sure why, aren't all cops racist against Hispanics too? :)), then I'm sure the Martin family will dig it up, they're going to have a lot of legal help now.

[Julio Riddols]

Wait, so in Florida you can kill whoever you want and then just go chill at your house for a week or two and wait until they hold a meeting to decide whether or not to arrest you? Even when they have recorded evidence that you got out of your car, pursued and shot someone without being provoked? Even when the dispatcher told you not to?

Just trying to make sure I understand things correctly here.

[molson]

Wait, so in Florida you can kill whoever you want and then just go chill at your house for a week or two and wait until they hold a meeting to decide whether or not to arrest you? Even when they have recorded evidence that you got out of your car, pursued and shot someone without being provoked? Even when the dispatcher told you not to?

Just trying to make sure I understand things correctly here.

The police can arrest you on suspicion on murder, but they can't make charging decisions. A grand jury can authorize the state to charge someone with murder, but they don't make the call to arrest, or to actually prosecute. The prosecutor decides whether to prosecute once the grand jury gives them the OK, and then they actually conduct the prosecution.

The police do arrest people on suspicion of murder all the time, but not every time. Sometimes there's no arrest until there's a grand jury indictment (like with Jerry Sandusky). The police MAY arrest if they have probable cause, but there's all kinds of other considerations that can go into that decision - public safety, defense claims, civil liability concerns. (if someone later decides you're wrong on the probable cause determination, your career is probably over and the city will be sued). They sometimes get legal advice from prosecutors or their own department attorneys - advice which they may or may not take.

Here, unless I missed something they didn't have "recorded evidence that (Zimmerman) got out of (his) car, pursued and shot someone without being provoked". They probably didn't even have those 911 calls that night, dispatch relays general info to police, they don't play the the actual 911 calls over the police radio. And even if police had that info, there was no evidence of what actually happened during whatever altercation happened, if any altercation happened, they just know stuff Zimmerman said before he killed Martin, and what he told police afterwards.

Edit: I'm actually not sure how to analyze constitutionality of an arrest in circumstances like this - where it's clear there was a killing, and it's clear who did it, but there's a self-defense claim. Does that always add up to probable cause for murder no matter what? Or does the credibility of the self-defense claim have to be evaluated by the police at the scene? If it's the latter, what's the standard for when you can arrest? I don't know those things, but presumably Florida police or at least the people giving them advice would.

[DaddyTorgo]

Edit: I'm actually not sure how to analyze constitutionality of an arrest in circumstances like this - where it's clear there was a killing, and it's clear who did it, but there's a self-defense claim. Does that always add up to probable cause for murder no matter what? Or does the credibility of the self-defense claim have to be evaluated by the police at the scene? If it's the latter, what's the standard for when you can arrest? I don't know those things, but presumably Florida police or at least the people giving them advice would.

This is Florida. Methinx you presume far too much.

[molson]

This is Florida. Methinx you presume far too much.

That's true, they could have not known the standard, and the on-call prosecutor might not have known it either. Certainly, it's safer not to arrest if you're not sure.

And I'm not sure of this either, but I remember someone from the Sheriff's Office saying something about how they didn't arrest because there wasn't anything contradicting the self-defense story. That might be their department policy, or it might be what they think their policy is - that they don't immediately arrest if there's a plausible self-defense claim. That's probably a good policy, and it probably gives them some protection from civil liability if they can follow it. And hey, maybe it wasn't followed correctly here - maybe the self-defense claim wasn't plausible. But it's safer to err in that direction. If you arrest someone in violation of your own policy, you're in big trouble, because you probably violated their rights. If you decide not to arrest someone right away, there's much less liability risk (the police could be sued I guess if they don't arrest someone right away and then that person kills again, but it'd be an uphill battle because the police aren't legally required to arrest anyone.)

And on the other side, the argument to arrest him is much more emotionally-driven - we want our justice NOW. It's dangerous thinking and police are trained not to think this way (though they do screw up and arrest people in this manner, and ya, blacks are probably hit with this disproportionately, at least in some places.). He's probably not a huge flight/safety risk, at least compared to most killers - and those would be the legitimate reasons to arrest him earlier than later, not because we're mad.

Edit: I have no idea if the police made the right calls here, either legally, or just policy-wise and execution-wise, I'm just throwing out some of the factors that can go into this stuff. Hopefully police departments across the country take this as an opportunity to revisit their own policy and training and determine exactly what they would do in a situation like this, and review and know the procedures they have in place for these types of calls. I'm positive that plenty of nationwide police academy scenario trainings will begin with the instructor saying, "so, remember that case in Florida, let's talk about that."

[bhlloy]

I guess my problem with that thinking is, if that's the hard and fast policy how do you ever arrest anyone for murder? In a case where you have a perp but no witnesses on the scene all the perp has to do is say "self defense" and you let him walk?

[molson]

I guess my problem with that thinking is, if that's the hard and fast policy how do you ever arrest anyone for murder? In a case where you have a perp but no witnesses on the scene all the perp has to do is say "self defense" and you let him walk?

Ya, ideally you could draft a policy that excludes that scenario, but includes ones where there's some arguable legitimacy. All while giving some discretion to the officers at the scene, but not too much. Unfortunately, many written policies suck. This would be a good high school honors civics class assignment or something to write one.

[bhlloy]

Yeah you might be right. Ultimately I'd have thought it makes sense to arrest anyone who has just killed an unarmed person just to be safe, but I understand that's not the kind of thinking that you can write laws based on.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If George Zimmerman had been the one laying on the ground with a hole in his chest & his only weapon a bag of skittles, Trayvon Martin would have been arrested and charged with murder.

Depends upon the neighborhood.

Whether it's Sanford, FL or Athens, GA, there's no shortage of places where Trayvon would have gotten a pat on the back & help getting out of town.

And there damned sure wouldn't have been a media frenzy about the death.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The police do arrest people on suspicion of murder all the time, but not every time.

Spot on. Had a case here fairly recently where two people claimed self-defense during a home invasion, no arrest (despite the fact that the dead guy was shot in the back).

Give or take 4 months later the pair are arrested & charged with murder, turned out the dead guy was the buyer in a drug deal where the sellers (the gun toting couple) decided they wanted to keep the money and the merchandise.

[bronconick]

The tape with the dispatcher is going to get the guy thrown into prison eventually, unless there's a lot more corruption in this case and at that point you might get the feds down there poking around.

I like the idea of a "stand your ground" law in that I shouldn't be legally required to escape from my own home by an intruder. That shouldn't give me the right to chase him down because I thought he was casing the joint.

[BYU 14]

“We are taking a beating over this,” said Lee, who defends the investigation. “This is all very unsettling. I’m sure if George Zimmerman had the opportunity to relive Sunday, Feb. 26, he’d probably do things differently. I’m sure Trayvon would, too.”

Yeah, I'm sure if Trayvon had know what would happen he would've gone and been black somewhere else.

Can this fucker come off sounding anymore insensitive or fucking ignorant.......Trayvon wouldn't have gone to the store to get fucking skittles? Really?

In terms of a struggle, the kid had to be scared shitless when someone that outweighed him by 50 pounds started chasing him for no reason. Not knowing what his intentions were, I am sure most of us would have tried to fight back or getaway.

I am all for exercising force in a self defense situation but this guy went looking for a reason to play Dirty Harry........Self defense never equals chasing someone down and fucking shooting them when you don't witness them do anything, have no reasonable indication they are going to do anything and don't make a threatening move/gesture towards you.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

And there damned sure wouldn't have been a media frenzy about the death.

Oh yeah... I forgot that the media hates white people.

Thanks for the reminder!

[RainMaker]

Shooter of Trayvon Martin a habitual caller to cops - Miami-Dade - MiamiHerald.com (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/2700249_p3/shooter-of-trayvon-martin-a-habitual.html)

“We are taking a beating over this,” said Lee, who defends the investigation. “This is all very unsettling. I’m sure if George Zimmerman had the opportunity to relive Sunday, Feb. 26, he’d probably do things differently. I’m sure Trayvon would, too.”

Yeah, I'm sure if Trayvon had know what would happen he would've gone and been black somewhere else.

Once I read the story about him calling the cops that much, I knew the type of person he was. We have one of these in our neighborhood too. Always in everyone else's business, always calling the cops, always bugging people.

[bhlloy]

I like the idea of a "stand your ground" law in that I shouldn't be legally required to escape from my own home by an intruder. That shouldn't give me the right to chase him down because I thought he was casing the joint.

To be fair, even the sponsors of the original bill have come out and said there's no way this should cover anything close to this situation. I guess it's a case of what they meant it to say vs. what it actually does say (see Molson's point above about how hard it is to write a decent law)

Hopefully even if they can't get any kind of a conviction this results in a better law being written. Not much consolation to the family of course.

[RainMaker]

Yeah, I keep hearing people bringing up the Stand Your Ground law and I still don't see how it applies. It seems from the details that this guy pursued the kid and shot him.

[JPhillips]

The police chief sure sounds like a winner.

Our investigation is color blind and based on the facts and circumstances, not color. I know I can say that until I am blue in the face, but, as a white man in a uniform, I know it doesn't mean anything to anybody.

This about an investigation that missed or deemed irrelevant a call to 911 where Zimmerman admitted he was pursuing Martin because, "these assholes always get away", missed or deemed irrelevant Martin's call to his girlfriend where he said he was being pursued, missed or deemed irrelevant another call to 911 where a caller said a strange man was pursuing Martin, missed or deemed irrelevant Zimmerman's story that he was attacked by Martin being contradicted by his calls to 9/11, missed or deemed irrelevant Zimmerman's history of calls to 9/11 complaining about blacks.

I don't know the police chief and I hesitate to blame race when I don't know all the facts, but his investigation was somewhere between incompetent and a coverup. He certainly has no right to claim to be the victim.

[Ksyrup]

Yeah, I keep hearing people bringing up the Stand Your Ground law and I still don't see how it applies. It seems from the details that this guy pursued the kid and shot him.

I believe it's more for the fight that ensued. Or is alleged to have ensued. I guess the circumstances leading up to the fight don't matter. Assuming there even was a fight. The guy had cuts and was injured, so it appears there was some kind of scuffle. Whether that resulted from him confronting the kid and the kid attacking him, or he snuck up on the kid and attacked him, either of which lead to the shooting, that's where the law is coming in. I think.

[Ksyrup]

FWIW (trivia, I guess), I went to law school with the guy representing the kid's family. Actually, both the guys who run that firm (Parks and Crump).

[flounder]

I saw someone make the point that if Martin had taken the gun and killed Zimmerman, he would have a defense based on Stand Your Ground. "Hey I was just standing there and this guy came at me with a gun."

[RendeR]

Zimmerman needs to go away. For a long time. He was told not to follow the kid. As a neighborhood watch member his defense ends right there.

he persued the kid, he instigated the confrontation and he shot the kid and killed him.

Thats premeditated. Put the bastard away.

You don't shoot someone without being threatened by lethal force to begin with. The kid was unarmed. There is no defense for this IMO.

Stand your ground my ass.

[spleen1015]

Even if this is a Stand Your Ground case, it doesn't become one if Zimmerman would have let the authorities handle the situation like he was told to do.

I hope the guy gets what he deserves, but I don't see it happening. He'll get off and serve no time, but will end up losing a wrongful death lawsuit instead.

[molson]

This about an investigation that missed or deemed irrelevant a call to 911 where Zimmerman admitted he was pursuing Martin because, "these assholes always get away", missed or deemed irrelevant Martin's call to his girlfriend where he said he was being pursued, missed or deemed irrelevant another call to 911 where a caller said a strange man was pursuing Martin, missed or deemed irrelevant Zimmerman's story that he was attacked by Martin being contradicted by his calls to 9/11, missed or deemed irrelevant Zimmerman's history of calls to 9/11 complaining about blacks.


How did they "miss" all that? - it's all been made public and the grand jury now has the case.

And it's not against the law to be racist, or follow black people, or to disobey 911 operator instruction, or call 911 a lot. Once this case is prosecuted, and it probably will be, unless there's something else out there, defense counsel is no doubt going to attempt to exclude a lot of that evidence as irrelevant/prejudicial. There will be a fight over every piece of that stuff. I think the prosecution can probably get most of it in, but unfortunately, you don't get to charge and arrest and throw someone in jail forever just based on anger and emotion. And you don't get to admit evidence for the purpose of showing that someone is a bad guy generally. And you're not allowed to try to prejudice the defendant through the media. Though I do kind of wish the general public was so prosecution friendly all the time

[JonInMiddleGA]

and don't make a threatening move/gesture towards you.

I don't think we know that part do we?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Oh yeah... I forgot that the media hates white people. Thanks for the reminder!

Gee, I must have missed every death involving a gun making national news and draws so-called activists to town.

If Trayvon shoots Zimmerman, nobody outside of a 50 mile radius ever hears a word about it.

[RendeR]

Gee, I must have missed every death involving a gun making national news and draws so-called activists to town.

If Trayvon shoots Zimmerman, nobody outside of a 50 mile radius ever hears a word about it.



And if Trayvon had a weapon...ANY weapon, it would be the same way, but the kid wasn't doing anything wrong, or illegal or even suspicious. he was walking home. Neighborhood watch is NOT a police force, they are there to CALL the police in not to detain not to engage. This guy tried to play cop and killed an innocent kid. He needs to fry for it.

He committed a crime. period.

[JonInMiddleGA]

A but the kid wasn't doing anything wrong, or illegal or even suspicious. he was walking home.

I'm glad you were there & witnessed everything.

Truth is, you don't know what the fuck this allegedly innocent kid was doing. Neither do I, so how bout we find out before we make any judgments.

[Ben E Lou]

He committed a crime. period.Based on the comments from the attorneys here, as well as several who've been interviewed by both conservative and liberal-leaning news outlets, it's not clear that he actually did in the state of Florida. It sounds like the law is horribly written. Read what KSyrup and molson have said, or, say, this article (http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/20/opinion/toobin-trayvon-martin/index.html). Zimmerman sounds like a real loser, very likely a bigot, and dangerous to society. But under Florida law, he may not be a murderer. In other words, even though he shouldn't have chased the guy down, once he was in a fight with him, he may be protected by this law. Ouch.


To the lawyers: if the above does prove to be true and Florida can't win a case against him, can the Feds do some "violation of civil rights" type thing?

[RendeR]

I'm glad you were there & witnessed everything.

Truth is, you don't know what the fuck this allegedly innocent kid was doing. Neither do I, so how bout we find out before we make any judgments.



Wether he was doing anything or not, he had no way to threaten Zimmerman with deadly force. No weapon unless you think the kids skittles were gonna choke Zimmerman to death?

You don't shoot unarmed people. You don't threaten to shoot unarmed people when there are POLICE on the way (we know this from the calls, why the fuck is he still involved?)

Sorry Jon, this guy fucked up. I can judge that from what little is already known. Defend him all you want, he needs to burn. Deadly force is a LAST resort, not a pursuit and assault choice.

[Ksyrup]

Just an FYI, I believe the law in Florida is that a citizen's arrest can be made if someone witnesses or reasonably believes a felony has been committed. You can detain someone and then have to call the police. So theoretically, any of us are allowed to do more than simply call the cops. It doesn't sound like he saw anything more than a kid walking around, and even if he thought the kid was looking for a house to break into, that's not (yet) a felony. But in general, citizens do have limited law enforcement rights.

[molson]

One of the other interesting things in this case to me is how the 911 calls got out so fast. 911 calls are subject to public records requests, but I know in most states, the state doesn't have to release anything that's part of a current investigation. And in fact, there's some duty not to release stuff if it's a pending criminal case. Wouldn't be a nice advantage for a prosecutor if you could publicly release all of your evidence before anyone has had a chance to object to its admissibility, and before a judge has ruled on its admissibility?

All of that stuff getting out, and getting the entire potential jury pool riled up before there's even charges would not be looked at very kindly in normal circumstances, I don't think. And I wonder if that will cause any problems for the prosecution later.

Point is, they didn't have to release those recordings (unless there was some court order or something based on a public records request under Florida law, which might have its own crazy exceptions and loopholes). Releasing them, or them somehow getting out, only helps the prosecution of this guy, because the future jurors have now already made up their mind. Odd tactics from a racist police force (well, racist against blacks but not Hispanics I guess) trying to cover everything up.

[RendeR]

And before you go further down the "you don't have a clue" trail. i've BEEN a security officer, I've walked and driven streets looking for teh same shit Zimmerman was. Packing a .45 the entire time.

I've had broken bottles and knives pulled on me.

How many times did I shoot someone? 0
How many times did I DRAW MY WEAPON? 0

nothing about what Zimmerman did clears him of the crime of murdering that boy. he did it on his own choice, He followed him, confronted him and shot him. Those are facts.

And thats called murder in most states.

[Ksyrup]

I don't know what happened with the legislation, but I seem to recall a bill in Florida within the past 3-4 years that would have specifically exempted 911 calls from public records. I'm assuming it didn't pass.

[molson]

To the lawyers: if the above does prove to be true and Florida can't win a case against him, can the Feds do some "violation of civil rights" type thing?

They definitely have the authority to, if there's a crime that fits - they can prosecute him whether the state does or not. That's just a policy call, if there's a crime that fits (and I don't know the criminal federal civil rights statutes at all, but there could be one that fits)

[RendeR]

One of the other interesting things in this case to me is how the 911 calls got out so fast. 911 calls are subject to public records requests, but I know in most states, the state doesn't have to release anything that's part of a current investigation. And in fact, there's some duty not to release stuff if it's a pending criminal case. Wouldn't be a nice advantage for a prosecutor if you could publicly release all of your evidence before anyone has had a chance to object to its admissibility, and before a judge has ruled on its admissibility?

All of that stuff getting out, and getting the entire potential jury pool riled up before there's even charges would not be looked at very kindly in normal circumstances, I don't think. And I wonder if that will cause any problems for the prosecution later.

Point is, they didn't have to release those recordings (unless there was some court order or something based on a public records request under Florida law, which might have its own crazy exceptions and loopholes). Releasing them, or them somehow getting out, only helps the prosecution of this guy, because the future jurors have now already made up their mind. Odd tactics from a racist police (well, racist against blacks but not Hispanics I guess) force trying to cover everything up.



Actually thats not the case in most states/counties AFAIK. Our local 911 calls are out almost within hours of the situation being reported at all. The only limitations being calls or information in calls that divulges someones identity directly.

[Ksyrup]

And thats called murder in most states.

OK, but in Florida, it might not. It may be justified under the law. Isn't that the whole point of this discussion? not really whether the law or this guy is right or wrong, but whether he committed a crime. Ultimately, the law may determine he did. But that's far from clear right now.

[RendeR]

I don't know what happened with the legislation, but I seem to recall a bill in Florida within the past 3-4 years that would have specifically exempted 911 calls from public records. I'm assuming it didn't pass.



probably a good thing IMO.

[Ksyrup]

They definitely have the authority to, if there's a crime that fits - they can prosecute him whether the state does or not. That's just a policy call, if there's a crime that fits (and I don't know the criminal federal civil rights statutes at all, but there could be one that fits)

Yeah, I'm thinking for the high profile cases where "justice wasn't served," you''ll see the feds step in if they have any reasonable basis for charging someone. The Rodney King case is one example.

[RendeR]

OK, but in Florida, it might not. It may be justified under the law. Isn't that the whole point of this discussion? not really whether the law or this guy is right or wrong, but whether he committed a crime. Ultimately, the law may determine he did. But that's far from clear right now.


Thats only true if you think he was the one being threatened in some way. Stand your ground is a defensive resort. What was Zimmerman defending?


Meh, it will all come out in the wash. I'm personally offended by people like Zimmerman who think they have some right to act like the law because the government lets them pack a 9mil in his trousers.

[spleen1015]

You guys have seen the pictures of this kid. Without holding a gun, there is no way this kid could have been life threatening to anyone. I don't see how Zimmerman can prove that he was really threatened by this kid.

[Ben E Lou]

I'm personally offended by people like Zimmerman who think they have some right to act like the law because the government lets them pack a 9mil in his trousers.That's all well and good, but your assertion that "he committed a crime. period" is very much up for debate. Did he do something morally wrong??? Based on what we've seen and heard so far, that's extremely likely. But did he do something legally wrong??? Obviously a whole lot of people trained in the law aren't so certain about that...

[Ksyrup]

Thats only true if you think he was the one being threatened in some way. Stand your ground is a defensive resort. What was Zimmerman defending?


Meh, it will all come out in the wash. I'm personally offended by people like Zimmerman who think they have some right to act like the law because the government lets them pack a 9mil in his trousers.

That's to be determined, isn't it? I don't know what he was defending, if anything at all. He showed signs of being in a fight. The law allows him to defend himself. Whether he's entitled to use that law as a defense to having killed someone is for law enforcement and state attorneys to decide. I don't think it's an open-and-shut case just because you pesonally don't like it when people act like this guy did.

Like I said, in many states citizens are permitted to arrest people. Theoretically, this guy could be dressing up like Batman and patrolling the worst parts of the city looking for felons in action, and he could lawfully arrest them. And, I suppose, if they fought back, he could shoot them. I'm not sure that's how I'd spend my evenings, and maybe that scares you more than it does me, but that's more an issue with the law, not the potential outcome of this case, it seems.

[RendeR]

Its not the action that scares me, its the slippery slope that allowing that action creates. If you let them shoot people WHILE out looking for trouble whats next? random drive bys?

Oh shit we have that already too, luckily we don't condone those ;)

[Ben E Lou]

Its not the action that scares me, its the slippery slope that allowing that action creates. That's not what you said earlier.He committed a crime. period.

[JonInMiddleGA]

That's not what you said earlier.

Glad someone else noticed, hate it when it's just me ;)

[RendeR]

Indeed. he killed someone without cause. An unarmed person at that.

Did I miss somewhere that we don't call that Murder anymore? Kewl, i'll grab my shotgun and head downtown. I'm sure SOMEONE will look suspicious enough to follow around and shoot.

Zimmerman killed another human being without cause. You don't think we know that? fine, you go right on thinking that way. When more kids walking home keep getting killed by overzealous wannabe rentacops then you'll be quite happy I'm sure.

I've already said it will come out in the wash. my faith in any government system at this point is pretty low so this PoS will probably get off with nothing.

I'm fairly sure my own experience in REAL life or death situations colors my judgement, and frankly, it should. Normal schmucks watching out for crimes shouldn't be carrying lethal weapons. They're the eyes and ears for the Police, they are not the enforcers.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Zimmerman sounds like a real loser, very likely a bigot, and dangerous to society.

Or not ...
Samantha Leigh Hamilton, an auto-dealership employee who has lived on Zimmerman's street for about a year, said that she once left her garage door up and Zimmerman noticed it while out walking his dog. He notified another neighbor, who let Hamilton know.

"The only impression I have of George Zimmerman is a good one," Hamilton said Wednesday.

Hamilton said another neighbor, a black woman, would regularly inform Zimmerman when she was out of town so that he could keep an eye on her place. Hamilton said that when she moved into the middle-class, racially mixed community of about 250 identical townhouses, the black neighbor told her, "Hey, if you need anything, you picked a really good area, since George is part of our neighborhood watch."
My Way News - Was Fla. shooter a vigilante or good neighbor? (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120322/D9TL86AO0.html)

Incidentally, from a different AP article (not for SD but for those who keep mentioning the dispatcher's instruction not to follow)

Police pointed out that the dispatcher's comment "is not a lawful order that Mr. Zimmermann would be required to follow." In other words, there's nothing there that precludes Zimmerman from acting as he did. (My guess from that phrasing being that the dispatchers aren't sworn/certified personnel & therefore cannot issue a lawful order)

[Ben E Lou]

Indeed. he killed someone without cause. An unarmed person at that.

Did I miss somewhere that we don't call that Murder anymore? You said a "crime." How can there be a crime if a law hasn't been broken?

To be clear, based on what I think I know, I *hope* this is a crime, but I'm too logical a thinker to just jump in and declare definitively thatHe committed a crime. period.

[BrianD]

Total side-point, but I am a bit disappointed by the 911 operator. "We don't need you to do that." That was the response to the answer that the guy was following the kid. I would like to see something more definite in that situation. "Do not follow him." "Starting an altercation could result in you being charged with a crime." Something. The wording of the response made it sound like the guy's choice...which didn't defuse the situation.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Indeed. he killed someone without cause.

Again, you're making an assumption that hasn't been substantiated.

I've already said it will come out in the wash. my faith in any government system at this point is pretty low so this PoS will probably get off with nothing.

Hey, a point of agreement, whaddya know. My faith in government systems tends to be so low that I figure he'll be railroaded no matter what the facts of the case turn out to be.

I'm fairly sure my own experience in REAL life or death situations colors my judgement, and frankly, it should.

Same here.

Normal schmucks watching out for crimes shouldn't be carrying lethal weapons.

Oops, we're back to disagreeing again.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Total side-point, but I am a bit disappointed by the 911 operator. "We don't need you to do that." ... The wording of the response made it sound like the guy's choice...which didn't defuse the situation.

See above, it was his choice. The dispatcher lacks the authority to give anything resembling an "order".

[RendeR]

You said a "crime." How can there be a crime if a law hasn't been broken?

To be clear, based on what I think I know, I *hope* this is a crime, but I'm too logical a thinker to just jump in and declare definitively that


Yeah well. My opinion is law, didn't you get the memo? ;)

[Ben E Lou]

Or not ...

My Way News - Was Fla. shooter a vigilante or good neighbor? (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120322/D9TL86AO0.html)

Incidentally, from a different AP article (not for SD but for those who keep mentioning the dispatcher's instruction not to follow)

Police pointed out that the dispatcher's comment "is not a lawful order that Mr. Zimmermann would be required to follow." In other words, there's nothing there that precludes Zimmerman from acting as he did. (My guess from that phrasing being that the dispatchers aren't sworn/certified personnel & therefore cannot issue a lawful order)
Possibly. But I'm smart enough to qualify my statements. ;)

That said, it's up for debate. I tend to suspect "loser" at a bare minimum based on his eleventy billion calls to the cops and the general impression I get from the collection of statements about him. You'd be hard-pressed to find many people for whom at least *someone* didn't stuck up. It's not that I discount this particular statement, per se. It's more that the preponderance of the evidence seems to suggest "bigoted loser." I know enough people who'd say "I can't stand niggers, but Ben is a great guy," to know better than to take him being nice to one black person as evidence that he's some "JFK meets Jesus Christ" white boy. ;)

[RendeR]

Yeah Jon, we never agree on much. You believe a free man should be able to carry around a way to kill another one just for kicks.

I think thats wrong when we have people to protect us from people like that in place called POLICE.

The right to bear arms is all well and good, I just don't see why it has to mean ANY and ALL types of arms.

Carry a shotgun, carry a rifle. Those are both perfectly good to defend yourself and to bring home dinner.

hand guns and anything with the ability to be automatic? Those are weapons of war. They are not necessary for day to day life.

But hey, I'm not out shooting kids in the street, maybe I'm missing out on something fun.

[RendeR]

Possibly. But I'm smart enough to qualify my statements. ;)

That said, it's up for debate. I tend to suspect "loser" at a bare minimum based on his eleventy billion calls to the cops and the general impression I get from the collection of statements about him. You'd be hard-pressed to find many people for whom at least *someone* didn't stuck up. It's not that I discount this particular statement, per se. It's more that the preponderance of the evidence seems to suggest "bigoted loser." I know enough people who'd say "I can't stand niggers, but Ben is a great guy," to know better than to take him being nice to one black person as evidence that he's some "JFK meets Jesus Christ" white boy. ;)



Ok this cracked me up. Thanks Ben =)

[molson]

Zimmerman killed another human being without cause..

Well, that's the crux of it, I’m sure he’d allege the cause was self-defense. It remains to be seen whether that alleged cause and how exactly he claims it went down is consistent with the 911 calls/physical evidence/anything he's already told police though. In this country, you do get to access all that evidence and then work your trial defense around it, which by design, makes it more difficult to convict people.

I get what people are saying, that from the facts here, there’s simply no plausible self-defense theory, and that might end up being true. But I guess I can at least hypothesize plenty of factual scenarios where self-defense might at least be on the table, at least with the gaps in the facts we have. I'd really love to know what he told to police at the scene - all of those statements would be 100% admissible, and I'd love to see how they line up with everything else we know now.

[lungs]

This guy saw fit to take the law into his own hands so maybe somebody else should take the law into their own hands and deliver justice.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I tend to suspect "loser" at a bare minimum based on his eleventy billion calls to the cops and the general impression I get from the collection of statements about him.

The upset at his phone calls to cops probably boggles my mind more than anything else about the case thus far.

"close to 50 times over the past eight years " (I've seen the number 48 elsewhere, so that sounds about right here). That's only 6 times a year, once every 60 days ... for a guy who is obviously highly engaged in some sort of neighborhood watch program AND lives in an area with a crime rate twice the national average. But his phone calls are problematic somehow?

What happened to "being involved"? What happened to "being the eyes & ears"? What happened to "looking after your neighbors"? And if, as some insist, citizens aren't supposed to take action, what else are they supposed to do?

Hell Ben, I could make close to 50 phone calls a year to ACC PD just on stuff I see in my neighborhood (and I'm on the good side of town). Head up toward the Jr. Varsity & it would be easy to make 50 calls a week.

[Ben E Lou]

Yeah well. My opinion is law, didn't you get the memo? ;)Heh. Clearly you missed the memo that *my* opinion is law. :p

[mckerney]

This guy saw fit to take the law into his own hands so maybe somebody else should take the law into their own hands and deliver justice.

He's not that far from Miami.

http://www.tz-online.de/bilder/2009/03/19/103676/371334569-dexter.9.jpg

[mckerney]

The upset at his phone calls to cops probably boggles my mind more than anything else about the case thus far.

"close to 50 times over the past eight years " (I've seen the number 48 elsewhere, so that sounds about right here). That's only 6 times a year, once every 60 days ... for a guy who is obviously highly engaged in some sort of neighborhood watch program AND lives in an area with a crime rate twice the national average. But his phone calls are problematic somehow?

What happened to "being involved"? What happened to "being the eyes & ears"? What happened to "looking after your neighbors"? And if, as some insist, citizens aren't supposed to take action, what else are they supposed to do?

Hell Ben, I could make close to 50 phone calls a year to ACC PD just on stuff I see in my neighborhood (and I'm on the good side of town). Head up toward the Jr. Varsity & it would be easy to make 50 calls a week.

14 months, not 8 years.

[RendeR]

I could see that jon if there were just as many calls coming from the otehr members of the watch. We don't really know that though so we can't guage.

I've lived in this neighborhood for 6 years now, I've called the police 2 times, both times for very specific crimes occuring within my sight. I've seen/heard comments that many of his calls were simply suspicions. he didn't actually see anything at the time. Maybe thats hearsay, I don't know, but 50 calls to the police? that seems ridiculous even for a person standing watch all the time.

It screams paranoid overzealous and a few other terms to me. let me label this, IN MY OPINION. just so people don't jump the shark on it ;)

[RendeR]

14 months, not 8 years.


Holy shit, all those calls in a YEAR? i had heard the 8 year thing too.... but in just over a year? thats fucking nuts.

[RendeR]

Heh. Clearly you missed the memo that *my* opinion is law. :p



your opinion has been noted and will be considered in due course ;)

[Ksyrup]

In Defense of ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws | Cato @ Liberty (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/in-defense-of-stand-your-ground-laws/)

[M GO BLUE!!!]

At least we know who will be buying a "Free George Zimmerman, An AMERICAN Patriot!" t-shirt.

[molson]

At least we know who will be buying a "Free George Zimmerman, An AMERICAN Patriot!" t-shirt.

Who? I see people asking questions and trying to handicap this but nobody saying his actions were awesome based on what we know.

[bronconick]

I believe it's more for the fight that ensued. Or is alleged to have ensued. I guess the circumstances leading up to the fight don't matter. Assuming there even was a fight. The guy had cuts and was injured, so it appears there was some kind of scuffle. Whether that resulted from him confronting the kid and the kid attacking him, or he snuck up on the kid and attacked him, either of which lead to the shooting, that's where the law is coming in. I think.

Ugh. That's an incredibly poorly written law, then. At that point, the difference between murder and self defense is what, who swung first? Who said "fighting words" to the other first? He keeps talking about how he's going to **** your mother until you finally punch him in the face and he shoots you, thereby "standing his ground"? (situation taken to the absurd extreme).

[Young Drachma]

“People of color, women, and gays—who now have greater access to the centers of influence that ever before—are under pressure to be well-behaved when talking about their struggles. There is an expectation that we can talk about sins but no one must be identified as a sinner: newspapers love to describe words or deeds as ‘racially charged’ even in those cases when it would be more honest to say ‘racist’; we agree that there is rampant misogyny, but misogynists are nowhere to be found; homophobia is a problem but no one is homophobic.

One cumulative effect of this policed language is that when someone dares to point out something as obvious as white privilege, it is seen as unduly provocative. Marginalized voices in America have fewer and fewer avenues to speak plainly about what they suffer; the effect of this enforced civility is that those voices are falsified or blocked entirely from the discourse.”

The White Savior Industrial Complex - Teju Cole - International - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/the-white-savior-industrial-complex/254843/)

[JonInMiddleGA]

14 months, not 8 years.

So far I've seen this cited as 11 years, "several" years, and the one I cited which says "calling police close to 50 times over the past eight years " (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120322/D9TL86AO0.html). If you've got one that says 14 months, I'll happily add it to the pile.

That said, I still alternate between "so what" and "big fucking deal". 48 in 14 months would still be less than once a week, and if you ain't seeing something to report at least once a week then you probably aren't looking

[mckerney]

Shooter of Trayvon Martin a habitual caller to cops - Miami-Dade - MiamiHerald.com (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/2700249/shooter-of-trayvon-martin-a-habitual.html)

Zimmerman called police 46 times since Jan. 1, 2011 to report disturbances, break-ins, windows left open and other incidents. Nine of those times, he saw someone or something suspicious

[JediKooter]

So he called 911 because someone left a window open? I wonder if he calls 911 because he can't find his pair of favorite socks?

[molson]

The White Savior Industrial Complex - Teju Cole - International - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/the-white-savior-industrial-complex/254843/)

It's a pretty big deal to accuse someone of being racist. The author seems to acknowledge that later in that article when he says, "I want to tread carefully here: I do not accuse Kristof of racism nor do I believe he is in any way racist" Obviously the author is concerned about how his own statements are perceived, just like those newspapers have to be concerned.

When you throw constitutional rights into the mix things get even more dangerous. When individuals in government make charging and arrest decisions, or really any decision (and that's "individuals" in government, not government as a whole as we often think of it), should they consider race? Should they try to account for racial perceptions, should they attempt the analysis of what would happen if races were reversed and how would that be perceived? Should they do whatever makes them look the least racist? This is difficult stuff. It's so easy to be cynical. It's so easy to assume every white government official will make every decision against the interest of any minority. That's the assumption, and then the government officials have the cultural burden of proving race-neutral reasons for every action. The net result is that, a defendant has lesser constitutional rights if their victim is of a different race. And hey, maybe that's justice, because it compensates for other injustices. But when you start with the assumption, "well, if this person was of this race the government official will do this every time", then the government official is already in a bad place, no matter who they are, no matter what's really in their heart. Should they factor that into their decisions that involve constitutional rights and peoples freedoms?

Edit: It's really two things you have to do, make a decision independent of emotion and any bias (racial or otherwise) as best you can, but then also overcome the perception burden that you're racist. (if you even should care about such a thing) I would love to see how the author of that article (and a lot of other people), would operate in that environment. Observation is incredibly easy because you can pick and choose what facts you want to emphasize, and it's all just an opinion anyway, and any mistakes - factual or logical - aren't going to impact anyone's freedom or constitutional rights. Observations and people observing are still important, of course, but I think you have to look at them with skepticism when they think they know what everyone else should do. Especially when they have so much damn confidence about what everyone should do, even if they have a fraction of the facts, and a fraction of the knowledge of the law and other constraints, and a fraction of the understanding about what gaps in the law and the facts might mean.

[JonInMiddleGA]

So he called 911 because someone left a window open?

Straight out of the Neighborhood Watch tips for preventing crime, right down to it being one of the very first things law enforcement tells them to look for.

There are three elements necessary for a crime to occur:

Opportunity: You have created a situation for a burglar or attacker to choose your residence or person. By this we mean that you have left a garage door open; a window ajar; inadequate lighting around your house that creates concealment, etc. This is the ONLY aspect Neighborhood Watch can control!


http://www.sacpd.org/getinvolved/watch/

[JediKooter]

I don't know. It gets hot in Florida and having a window open would not raise any alarm bells.

He sounds more like a nosey wanna be cop. Kind of like the BTK killer.

[AENeuman]

If Trayvon shoots Zimmerman, nobody outside of a 50 mile radius ever hears a word about it.


Truth is, you don't know what the fuck this allegedly innocent kid was doing. Neither do I, so how bout we find out before we make any judgments.

cute.

[Young Drachma]

Trayvon Shooter's 911 Calls: Potholes, Piles of Trash—and Black Men | Mother Jones (http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/trayvon-shooters-911-calls-potholes-piles-trash-black-men)

[Ksyrup]

I don't know. It gets hot in Florida and having a window open would not raise any alarm bells.

He sounds more like a nosey wanna be cop. Kind of like the BTK killer.

If you know anything about Florida, if you are hot, opening the windows is the LAST thing most people would do. Unless you enjoying bathing in clothing.

[molson]

He's clearly strange and possibly mentally ill. Under normal circumstances, that would be the kind of thing a prosecutor might try to take advantage of, and a defense attorney might accuse him of prosecutorial misconduct for doing so. Everything's backwards in this one case, it's pretty surreal. I haven't really been able to articulate it yet though.

[mckerney]

Looks like the other person was always the aggressor in Zimmerman's violent confrontations.

Trayvon Martin George Zimmerman: New details in George Zimmerman domestic violence petitions - Orlando Sentinel (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-21/news/os-george-zimmerman-domestic-violence-20120321_1_petitions-documents-injunctions)

<i>The woman reported Zimmerman had arrived at her home Aug. 8 and asked to talk. Later, when she asked him to leave, she said, he insisted on staying and demanded documents she had.

The woman said she offered to drop the papers off the following day, but Zimmerman became upset, took her cellphone and shoved her. A fight ensued, she said, and her dog bit Zimmerman's cheek.

Zimmerman filed his own petition the day after his ex-fiancée's, in which he claimed that she had been the aggressor in the fight. He said she called him Aug. 8 and invited him to spend the night.<i>

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't know. It gets hot in Florida and having a window open would not raise any alarm bells.

Anybody that leaves their house with a window open is frickin' idiotic afaic.
Doing so in a town where the property crime rate is 3x the national average is well beyond idiotic.
Sanford crime rates and statistics - NeighborhoodScout (http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/fl/sanford/crime/)

[digamma]

Straight out of the Neighborhood Watch tips for preventing crime, right down to it being one of the very first things law enforcement tells them to look for.




http://www.sacpd.org/getinvolved/watch/

Look out for, not report as suspicious activity.

Come on, Jon, calling because a window is open doesn't pass the giggle test. At best, it's a tremendous drain on resources and at worst it's a clear sign of paranoia.

[wade moore]

So far I've seen this cited as 11 years, "several" years, and the one I cited which says "calling police close to 50 times over the past eight years " (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120322/D9TL86AO0.html). If you've got one that says 14 months, I'll happily add it to the pile.

That said, I still alternate between "so what" and "big fucking deal". 48 in 14 months would still be less than once a week, and if you ain't seeing something to report at least once a week then you probably aren't looking


Can you give some examples of what you see on a weekly basis that "should be reported"?

[Scoobz0202]

Straight out of the Neighborhood Watch tips for preventing crime, right down to it being one of the very first things law enforcement tells them to look for.




http://www.sacpd.org/getinvolved/watch/

Also straight out of that link:


Neighborhood Watch is not any of the following:
a vigilante force working outside the normal procedures of the local police department
a 100% guarantee that crime will not occur in your neighborhood
a program designed for participants to undertake personal risks to deter crime

[gstelmack]

Yeah well. My opinion is law, didn't you get the memo? ;)

Those of you who think you know what you are doing are really starting to annoy those of us who do.

That was a sign in the teacher's lounge in my high school :D

[molson]

Also straight out of that link:

I'm still trying to understand what Zimmerman's non-compliance with accepted neighborhood watch policies has to do with anything, at least as far as what charges he might face.

[gstelmack]

I don't know. It gets hot in Florida and having a window open would not raise any alarm bells.

When it's hot in Florida, people in Florida close the windows and turn on the AC. Opening the windows won't take care of it.

[Scoobz0202]

I'm still trying to understand what Zimmerman's non-compliance with accepted neighborhood watch policies has to do with anything, at least as far as what charges he might face.

Nothing to do with. I just fail to understand Jon's point that he is doing some civic service while failing to follow what seems to be a basic recommendation of the link he posted. To paint him anything but a public nuisance is odd to me.

Shit, I have no idea what charges he will face.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Can you give some examples of what you see on a weekly basis that "should be reported"?

Suspicious vehicle would be the most obvious off the top of my head, from a immediate neighborhood standpoint. No shortage of iffy characters in the "pinestraw business" around here.

More broadly - let's say the area a few miles up the road I mentioned to SD earlier - you've got everything from loitering after hours to public drunk (think safety hazard here, not just general obnoxiousness, this is a very busy 3-4 lane road I'm talking about) to the occasional hooker to reckless driving.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Nothing to do with. I just fail to understand Jon's point that he is doing some civic service while failing to follow what seems to be a basic recommendation of the link he posted. To paint him anything but a public nuisance is odd to me.

You missed my point apparently, which was that an open window is exactly the sort of thing that n.w. programs tell participants to watch for. Presumably that would be to report them, otherwise what exactly would be the purpose in watching for them?

Relevant only because some folks seem to think there's something amiss about reporting that kind of thing, whereas is ought to be pretty normal for any n.w. to do.

[Ksyrup]

When it's hot in Florida, people in Florida close the windows and turn on the AC. Opening the windows won't take care of it.

The guy in San Diego loses on this point. :D I remember staying somewhere in the Southern California area on my honeymoon, and the place we were staying didn't even have AC. And it was a first floor room, small little quasi-bed-and-breakfast. No frickin' way I'd leave a 1st floor window open like that.

In fact, when we leave windows open at our house - in a low crime area - they are only the ones away from any easy access. none near a roof ledge, or the deck. Just the ones with sheer brick wall under them.

[Ksyrup]

You missed my point apparently, which was that an open window is exactly the sort of thing that n.w. programs tell participants to watch for. Presumably that would be to report them, otherwise what exactly would be the purpose in watching for them?

Relevant only because some folks seem to think there's something amiss about reporting that kind of thing, whereas is ought to be pretty normal for any n.w. to do.

I don't know what things an active NW does or doesn't do, but the first thing that would come to mind if I was charged, even informally under some form of NW program, with "looking out for me and my neighbor's best interests," would be to knock on that person's door, or call them, or something other than dialing 911. And probably, I'd get a general sense from the community what kinds of things they want people to look out for and alert them of. Maybe in a particular Florida community an open window would be an issue. Here, not so much.

I know we have alerted a couple of neighbors to an open garage after midnight, and an open car door for over 30 minutes. And by "alert" I mean one of us went over to their house to tell them about it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

would be to knock on that person's door, or call them, or something other than dialing 911.

And you're aware that he never did anything of that sort?

We're just assuming he dials on sight, right? Couldn't possibly have checked & gotten no response or anything like that?

[lungs]

I'd be a terrible neighborhood watch person. I heard a gunshot behind my house last night and I barely bothered to look out the window.

[BrianD]

Do NW programs not recommend calling the local police directly? Any time I have reported suspicious activity or a noise complaint, I call the local police. One would think that a person calling once a week would have that number on speed dial. I'm surprised the 911 operator never directed him to the local office.

[BrianD]

I'd be a terrible neighborhood watch person. I heard a gunshot behind my house last night and I barely bothered to look out the window.

Rogue cow gang?

[JPhillips]

I'd be a terrible neighborhood watch person. I heard a gunshot behind my house last night and I barely bothered to look out the window.

Two bulls fighting over cow?

[wade moore]

Suspicious vehicle would be the most obvious off the top of my head, from a immediate neighborhood standpoint. No shortage of iffy characters in the "pinestraw business" around here.

More broadly - let's say the area a few miles up the road I mentioned to SD earlier - you've got everything from loitering after hours to public drunk (think safety hazard here, not just general obnoxiousness, this is a very busy 3-4 lane road I'm talking about) to the occasional hooker to reckless driving.

Sounds to me like you're drawing all of your examples besides "suspicious vehicles" (whatever that means) is stuff actually happening outside of your neighborhood. I'm not sure what has to do with why a Neighborhood Watch person would call the police.

And, on top of that, sounds to me like you live in a shady area if all of that is going within a couple of miles of your house on a regular basis.

[JediKooter]

When it's hot in Florida, people in Florida close the windows and turn on the AC. Opening the windows won't take care of it.

I've been in Florida at all different parts of the year. My grandma, would leave the windows open unless it was too hot. I've lived in Panama City and when it wasn't too hot, we'd have a window or two open.

[lungs]

Rogue cow gang?

Two bulls fighting over cow?

Heh. Realistically who knows. Probably a coyote hunter. Gunshots barely register on my radar. There's always somebody killin' somethin' 'round these parts.

[JediKooter]

The guy in San Diego loses on this point. :D I remember staying somewhere in the Southern California area on my honeymoon, and the place we were staying didn't even have AC. And it was a first floor room, small little quasi-bed-and-breakfast. No frickin' way I'd leave a 1st floor window open like that.

In fact, when we leave windows open at our house - in a low crime area - they are only the ones away from any easy access. none near a roof ledge, or the deck. Just the ones with sheer brick wall under them.

I would lose a point only if I've never left the state of California or ever lived anywhere besides the state of California.

[Ksyrup]

And you're aware that he never did anything of that sort?

We're just assuming he dials on sight, right? Couldn't possibly have checked & gotten no response or anything like that?

I don't know what this guy does or doesn't do. We're talking hypotheticals,. You're talking about it being a normal thing to call 911 because of an open window. I disagree.

For an open window, absent something like seeing someone in the house or hearing/seeing something else that looked suspicious, I can't think of any reason I'd call 911. I don't think that would be called for in any way.

[Ksyrup]

I've been in Florida at all different parts of the year. My grandma, would leave the windows open unless it was too hot. I've lived in Panama City and when it wasn't too hot, we'd have a window or two open.

Unless you are directly on the beach, that's just crazy. And even then, the breeze is still too humid to be refreshing - unless maybe it's directly after a storm or something.

[JediKooter]

I guess it's ok for him to not be such an upstanding citizen. I'm not surprised by his self imposed double standard, since it's usually the ones that are most vocal about things are the most guilty.

George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin’s killer, had prior brushes with the law | The Lookout - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-killer-had-brushes-prior-153033731.html)

[mckerney]

I don't know what this guy does or doesn't do. We're talking hypotheticals,. You're talking about it being a normal thing to call 911 because of an open window. I disagree.

For an open window, absent something like seeing someone in the house or hearing/seeing something else that looked suspicious, I can't think of any reason I'd call 911. I don't think that would be called for in any way.

I was always under the impression that 911 was for actually emergencies. The only times I've called to report something to the police it's been with the non emergency numbers.

[JediKooter]

Unless you are directly on the beach, that's just crazy. And even then, the breeze is still too humid to be refreshing - unless maybe it's directly after a storm or something.

Or you're poor, like my grandma was. Open windows and a few fans. There's a number of reasons why someone would have their windows open. After storms were the best time in my opinion though. I just liked the way it smelled.

[Ben E Lou]

Yeah, I have to side with KSyrup/JIMGA on the "open window in Florida" point. JediKooter has a point on the poor person thing, but my impression is that this was a solidly middle class gated community. I don't find it odd that open windows would raise at least a yellow flag there. I've gotten notes from the police department here when I accidentally left my garage door open overnight. Reporting something like that isn't really a big deal to me.

That said, it's still the overall picture that leads me to think the dude's a loser. 28 years old, living with his parents, apparently no real job, multiple brushes with the law, unpaid credit cards, and spending a significant amount of time and energy on playing cop.

[PackerFanatic]

I was always under the impression that 911 was for actually emergencies. The only times I've called to report something to the police it's been with the non emergency numbers.

And I am pretty sure the 911 dispatchers would tell you the same thing.

[JediKooter]

I do admit, the one thing I did not see is (regarding open windows) were those people home or not? If they were home, to me that brings it into the creepy BTK zone.

This guy has issues, no doubt in my mind. There's being diligent and there's being a pest. Sounds like he took it well beyond the pest stage.

[Ksyrup]

I do admit, the one thing I did not see is (regarding open windows) were those people home or not? If they were home, to me that brings it into the creepy BTK zone.

This guy has issues, no doubt in my mind. There's being diligent and there's being a pest. Sounds like he took it well beyond the pest stage.

Or worse, that he never checked, just called 911. But I agree with JIMGA, that we don't know any of those details. My only point is, I don't see how you call 911 for an open window unless you hear a scream or see someone laying unconscious inside or something like that.

Personally, I've only called 911 twice in my life, and both were due to car accidents. I've been fortunate enough to never run into a situation at home where it was necessary. But I have seen plenty of open windows... :p

[cartman]

I think it depends on the jurisdiction on when to call 911. A couple of years ago, my car was broken into on a surface lot in downtown Dallas. The thief, along with my stereo and radar detector were long gone, so I called the non-emergency number. They told me to call 911.

[Ben E Lou]

This guy has issues, no doubt in my mind. There's being diligent and there's being a pest. Sounds like he took it well beyond the pest stage.Right. I agree with you there. "You got to let some shit just sliiiiiiiiide."--Chris Rock. JIMGA is correct to a degree--there are dozens of activities daily, even in a nice neighborhood, that *could* be reported to local law enforcement, and in many cases an arrest or citation *could* be issued. But for the same reason it'd be problematic to have a cop with OCD out there trying to enforce every single minor violation of every single law or statute he sees, it's problematic when a self-appointed neighborhood watch captain wannabe cop is out there evidently acting OCD about everything he sees. The overall report on this guy seems to be that people whose property he helped protect from a real criminal thought he was helpful, but people who saw his overzealousness thought he was just creepy. Sure, if you're out there acting like the Dirty Harry of your neighborhood, you *are* likely to stop/deter some criminals, but if you cross that line into creepy/overzealous/OCD/pest/whatever too frequently, the negatives can outweigh the positives.

[JediKooter]

Or worse, that he never checked, just called 911. But I agree with JIMGA, that we don't know any of those details. My only point is, I don't see how you call 911 for an open window unless you hear a scream or see someone laying unconscious inside or something like that.

Personally, I've only called 911 twice in my life, and both were due to car accidents. I've been fortunate enough to never run into a situation at home where it was necessary.

I totally agree with you. Unless he saw a pair of feet disappear into the window or heard something like you said, a call to 911 for an open window is a bit extreme and (to me at least) borderline abuse of the 911 system.

I think I've only called it two or three times. Once was for a medical emergency of a neighbor across the street. I had my car broken into, I called the number to the sheriff's department to report it, not 911. My house was paint balled (along with most of the other houses on my street), I called the sheriff's department to report it, not 911. I have a feeling this guy would call 911 for both situations.

But I have seen plenty of open windows... :p

Hey, maybe they were cooking something very stinky and wanted to air out the place? :D

[JonInMiddleGA]

Sounds to me like you're drawing all of your examples besides "suspicious vehicles" (whatever that means) is stuff actually happening outside of your neighborhood. I'm not sure what has to do with why a Neighborhood Watch person would call the police.

We're splitting two observations here or something. You asked for examples of my "weekly ought to be reported stuff", so I threw out my own most local one as well as another area I drive through fairly frequently. Every 'hood is going to have it's own list obviously.

I guess my "pinestraw" reference was too obscure. It's a common scam in some places, typically two guys in an old pickup who go door to door offering to sell you "some pinestraw they had leftover from another job". After spreading a few bales of decomposing junk, they range from changing the price & trying to intimidate the homeowner into paying more than agreed or case the house/property for future reference, etc. Similar to the "leftover asphalt/blacktop" scams that used to be all the rage. On average I see at least one of those guys a week here about 9 months a year, sometimes several a week. There isn't anything about them that isn't at least suspicious.

And, on top of that, sounds to me like you live in a shady area if all of that is going within a couple of miles of your house on a regular basis.

Welcome to Athens, GA. It just so happens that one of the 2-3 highest crime neighborhoods is between much of the outlying residential areas where the non-student population lives & both the University and the downtown area.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I think it depends on the jurisdiction on when to call 911. A couple of years ago, my car was broken into on a surface lot in downtown Dallas. The thief, along with my stereo and radar detector were long gone, so I called the non-emergency number. They told me to call 911.

You beat me to it.

Most of the jurisdictions I've lived in had non-emergency numbers that ended with office hours at 4p or 5p. After that all calls went to 911, either with a "push 1 to reach" prompt or simply a recording that told you to call 911.

Then again, I also know that one of the more frequent non-emergency calls for rural 911's are people trying to report power outtages so it can get a little crazy.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And the guy could be anything here from a creep to a hero as far as I can tell.

The phone stuff (which I mentioned pretty consistently elsewhere yesterday long before I ever opened this thread) really just boggles my mind though, bewilderment influenced no doubt by the wide range of time frames I've seen quoted for the 48 calls.

[Ksyrup]

Yeah, I had my car broken into and stereo stolen as well. My roommate left the passenger door unlocked. Obviously a crime, but just as obviously, not an emergency, since it happened hours earlier in the middle of the night. I called the regular police line.

[Ben E Lou]

And the guy could be anything here from a creep to a hero as far as I can tell.That's fair, and I'm still *open* to the possibility of "hero."

But my spidey sense here says "loser."

[Ksyrup]

bewilderment influenced no doubt by the wide range of time frames I've seen quoted for the 48 calls.

Eh, 48 calls to 911 is a lot, even for a lifetime. I think it's more to do with why you call. We've all laughed at the drunk guy who calls 911 because mcDonald's won't serve him after they are closed. But calling 911 on a routine basis for what might be nothing more than warning signs of what could lead to attracting criminal behavior, without anything else, seems a bit extreme and abusive of the situation. I'm honestly curious whether these were just "open window of a house down the street, I think you ought to check it out" type calls, or if there was something else - "I just saw a guy running away from a house and noticed a window open when I went over to check."

[mckerney]

The overall report on this guy seems to be that people whose property he helped protect from a real criminal thought he was helpful, but people who saw his overzealousness thought he was just creepy. Sure, if you're out there acting like the Dirty Harry of your neighborhood, you *are* likely to stop/deter some criminals, but if you cross that line into creepy/overzealous/OCD/pest/whatever too frequently, the negatives can outweigh the positives.

Looks like that's that case. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-20120320,0,1508238.story)


One African American resident, Ibrahim Rashada, told the Herald that Zimmerman seemed friendly and helpful, but Zimmerman also circulated a description of a suspect that pulled Rashada up short. "I fit the stereotype he emailed around," Rashada said. That realization led Rashada to drive downtown whenever he wants to take a walk and stretch his legs. "I don’t want anyone chasing me," he said.

[JediKooter]

Right. I agree with you there. "You got to let some shit just sliiiiiiiiide."--Chris Rock. JIMGA is correct to a degree--there are dozens of activities daily, even in a nice neighborhood, that *could* be reported to local law enforcement, and in many cases an arrest or citation *could* be issued. But for the same reason it'd be problematic to have a cop with OCD out there trying to enforce every single minor violation of every single law or statute he sees, it's problematic when a self-appointed neighborhood watch captain wannabe cop is out there evidently acting OCD about everything he sees. The overall report on this guy seems to be that people whose property he helped protect from a real criminal thought he was helpful, but people who saw his overzealousness thought he was just creepy. Sure, if you're out there acting like the Dirty Harry of your neighborhood, you *are* likely to stop/deter some criminals, but if you cross that line into creepy/overzealous/OCD/pest/whatever too frequently, the negatives can outweigh the positives.

I don't necessarily disagree 100% with Jon. It's a 'pick your battles' kind of thing with me. Nothing I can add to what you just said, that's a pretty good summation of how I feel about it.

What's the line from Dirty Harry? "Inspector, your methods are unconventional to say the least. Oh, you get results. But often your successes are more costly to this department in terms of expenses and physical destruction than most other men's failures." :D

[Ksyrup]

Zimmerman also circulated a description of a suspect that pulled Rashada up short. "I fit the stereotype he emailed around," Rashada said.

http://www.unquality.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/reporter_suspect.jpg

SHIT.

[illinifan999]

Trayvon Shooter's 911 Calls: Potholes, Piles of Trash—and Black Men | Mother Jones (http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/trayvon-shooters-911-calls-potholes-piles-trash-black-men)

I just skimmed through most of their documented "9-1-1 calls" they provide. Not surprisingly most of the calls they provide were not made by dialing 9-1-1, but rather by dialing the non-emergency number. Had he been calling 9-1-1 consistently to report non-emergencies, he would've been charged with whatever Florida's code for misusing 9-1-1.

Here as long as you dial the non-emergency number, you can report just about anything you want to, and even better they'll dispatch someone to it if a supervisor isn't paying attention.

[molson]

So if he's always watching everything, calling 911, and following people around, then something made this occasion different. It was either something internal (like a mental breakdown), or something external (like the kid responding physically somehow to being followed). Zimmerman's probably really used to feeling like he's in control, in charge of everything. If someone doesn't go along with that and either physically resists, or just yells and pleads for someone to help him, it's easy to see things escalating. And there's just no way to know the details of events through that escalation. No matter what happens, there's going to be a lot of people who feel like there's a huge injustice, and that sucks.

[Young Drachma]

So if he's always watching everything, calling 911, and following people around, then something made this occasion different. It was either something internal (like a mental breakdown), or something external (like the kid responding physically somehow to being followed). Zimmerman's probably really used to feeling like he's in control, in charge of everything. If someone doesn't go along with that and either physically resists, or just yells and pleads for someone to help him, it's easy to see things escalating. And there's just no way to know the details of events through that escalation. No matter what happens, there's going to be a lot of people who feel like there's a huge injustice, and that sucks.

If his lawyers work half as hard as you have in this thread to defend him, he's gonna be just fine.

[gstelmack]

I've been in Florida at all different parts of the year. My grandma, would leave the windows open unless it was too hot. I've lived in Panama City and when it wasn't too hot, we'd have a window or two open.

The panhandle doesn't count, it's too far north and gets an actual winter sometimes. In Tampa and Orlando, there are maybe 4 weeks all year we could leave the windows open...

[JonInMiddleGA]

What's the line from Dirty Harry? "Inspector, your methods are unconventional to say the least. Oh, you get results. But often your successes are more costly to this department in terms of expenses and physical destruction than most other men's failures." :D

Of course that line was delivered by one of the villains of the piece, which kind of seems relevant here somehow ;)

[Rizon]

I've called 911 three times in my life:

1) When the bushes outside our house caught on fire in the middle of the night (junipers, went up like gasoline, thought the house was on fire)

2) An obviously drugged up woman threw a shoe at my neighbors kids. Woman ended up being on drugs.

3) A suspicious person was in my neighbors car. Thought it was my neighbor crying, but it ended up being a tweaker on a tweak binge and his shit got tased.

[mckerney]

My God this "Stand Your Ground," law needs to be changed. A judge ruled it applies to a man who stabbed an unarmed burgler after chasing him more than a block.

Miami judge decides fatal stabbing was self-defense - 03/21/2012 | MiamiHerald.com (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/v-print/2706789/miami-judge-stabbing-in-the-back.html)

[Ksyrup]

My God this "Stand Your Ground," law needs to be changed. A judge ruled it applies to a man who stabbed an unarmed burgler after chasing him more than a block.

Miami judge decides fatal stabbing was self-defense - 03/21/2012 | MiamiHerald.com (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/v-print/2706789/miami-judge-stabbing-in-the-back.html)


To me, a case with facts like that drifts over from "stand your ground" to "using deadly force to defend property," which is not allowed. You can use deadly force if you are confronted and in danger; you can't use deadly force to essentially track down the guy who stole your property and kill him. I bet that ruling will not stand.

[JediKooter]

The panhandle doesn't count, it's too far north and gets an actual winter sometimes. In Tampa and Orlando, there are maybe 4 weeks all year we could leave the windows open...

Well, my family on my dad's side is all from that area, so I'm familiar with the weather there too. Plus, I was born in Lakeland. Not that that means much. :D


Of course that line was delivered by one of the villains of the piece, which kind of seems relevant here somehow :)

Hehe, that is a very good point.

[Ksyrup]

Really? I went to Florida Southern.

[JonInMiddleGA]

My God this "Stand Your Ground," law needs to be changed. A judge ruled it applies to a man who stabbed an unarmed burgler after chasing him more than a block.

Given that brief description, the most obvious change would be the name, to the "Stop Stealing My Shit" law.

The outcome is one I heartily applaud however, Garcia did the world a favor.

[molson]

If his lawyers work half as hard as you have in this thread to defend him, he's gonna be just fine.

There it is!

I don't know what to say, I don't feel that I've defended him. I find it the situation interesting (and sad), I have worked a lot in this field, I have a lot of sensitivity to the issues involved. I do look at cases for their weaknesses, provability, whether they fit the elements of a crime, and also for civil liability issues and issues prosecutors will face proving the case down the road. I think a lot of my posts were about what the prosecutors need to do to prove the case against him. If a prosecutor came to me and said they had a slam dunk case my instinct would be to try to find the holes/challenges in it.

And I always do get uncomfortable and probably defensive when there's so much emotion thrown into a criminal law situation. Constitutional rights don't mix with emotion. And I do sometimes get annoyed when people have confident assumptions about the law or criminal procedure that are just 100% incorrect. But I don't think I've said anything remotely out of line, or untrue, so I think your comment is unfair, and cheap. But not unexpected. Well, the fact that it's you is actually kind of unexpected.

[JediKooter]

Really? I went to Florida Southern.

Born in Lakeland, grew up in California (with a brief 3 year stint in Wyoming), then moved to Panama City after high school, then joined the Air Force. Most of my Florida 'experience' is in the Plant City/Lakeland area though.

[Ksyrup]

Yeah, like molson, I find this whole story interesting from a legal perspective (and sad from the human side), even though the sum total of my criminal law experience is in 2 law school classes 18 or 19 years ago and studying for 2 Bar exams. I don't know enough about the law or the facts to have figured out whether to defend him or shit on him.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I love fresh air.

When I lived in Florida (Melbourne) I would open the windows as soon as I got home. It was during autumn, but I didn't move to Florida to sit in my apartment blasting AC.

I now live in Detroit and have 3 windows open right now, while at work. They are the 3rd & 4th stories of the building, in a gated condo complex. If someone wants to get a big ass ladder, they will be met by a 90 lb dog who may not be very friendly...

[RainMaker]

My God this "Stand Your Ground," law needs to be changed. A judge ruled it applies to a man who stabbed an unarmed burgler after chasing him more than a block.

Miami judge decides fatal stabbing was self-defense - 03/21/2012 | MiamiHerald.com (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/v-print/2706789/miami-judge-stabbing-in-the-back.html)

I like the law, I don't know why it would apply in this case though. Would be interested in hearing more details on this particular case. In any event, if there is confusion, I tend to side with the person who was initially the victim. If you don't want to get stabbed, don't break into someone's home. Pretty simple solution to the problem.

[Glengoyne]

That's fair, and I'm still *open* to the possibility of "hero."

But my spidey sense here says "loser."

+1

[judicial clerk]

I have experience with criminal investigations. I am a police detective and while my agency does not have straight homicide detectives, I have been the lead detective or assisting detective in 12 to 15 homicides.

Like most of you, my spidey senses tell me that this guy Zimmerman is creepy and that he is criminally responsible for the death of this young man. The caveat to this is that I only know what news outlets are telling me (dont forget they are in the business of selling advertising. Also, sometimes my spidey senses are wrong (but not usually).

To defend Molson a tiny bit, he reads like a person who has had to try to prove a case in court before. Where some of you see a person who is trying to explain away Zimmerman's behavior I see a person who refuses to go off half-cocked and act on knee-jerk reactions. Skydog and ksyrup are the same way and I think I agree with everything the three wrote.

To NOT defend the investigating police agency, The statement given by the Chief regarding running a colorblind investigation and not being believed because he is white seems like a stupid thing to say. Its like this guy has never been criticized in the press before. Generally, If I was running the investigation, my only comment would be that this is an ongoing investigation and we have no further comment at this time. Regarding the evidenciary issues the press has reported about phonecalls and cell phones and witness statements, the press gets that stuff wrong so often that you shouldnt make any judgments based on it.

I will also comment to the people who wanted Zimmerman arrested the day of the occurance. Generally, the last thing you want to do is arrest the suspect. I don't mean you don't want to arrest the person, I mean in a perfect world it would be the last step in the initial investigation. In my jurisdiction, once a person is arrested on a homicide we have 7 days to get the case in front of a grandjury. Any evidence that you dig up eight days after the arrest the initial grand jury is not going to hear. Also, probably the last time you get to speak with the suspect is initially after the arrest. As the interviewer you would like to have as much information as possible and if the interview takes place immediately the interview wont be as successful. Finally, within a day of being arrested the suspect will be represented by an attorney who in an attempt to vigorously defend his/her client will put up as many roadblocks as possible to us developing evidence against the suspect. Now, all cases are different and some are manhunts from the start but in this case I don't think I would make an immediate arrest. It might feel good to the media to arrest a suspect and put him in county jail but justice is better served co convict a suspect and put him in state prison.

[Young Drachma]

I have experience with criminal investigations. I am a police detective and while my agency does not have straight homicide detectives, I have been the lead detective or assisting detective in 12 to 15 homicides.

Like most of you, my spidey senses tell me that this guy Zimmerman is creepy and that he is criminally responsible for the death of this young man. The caveat to this is that I only know what news outlets are telling me (dont forget they are in the business of selling advertising. Also, sometimes my spidey senses are wrong (but not usually).

To defend Molson a tiny bit, he reads like a person who has had to try to prove a case in court before. Where some of you see a person who is trying to explain away Zimmerman's behavior I see a person who refuses to go off half-cocked and act on knee-jerk reactions. Skydog and ksyrup are the same way and I think I agree with everything the three wrote.

To NOT defend the investigating police agency, The statement given by the Chief regarding running a colorblind investigation and not being believed because he is white seems like a stupid thing to say. Its like this guy has never been criticized in the press before. Generally, If I was running the investigation, my only comment would be that this is an ongoing investigation and we have no further comment at this time. Regarding the evidenciary issues the press has reported about phonecalls and cell phones and witness statements, the press gets that stuff wrong so often that you shouldnt make any judgments based on it.

I will also comment to the people who wanted Zimmerman arrested the day of the occurance. Generally, the last thing you want to do is arrest the suspect. I don't mean you don't want to arrest the person, I mean in a perfect world it would be the last step in the initial investigation. In my jurisdiction, once a person is arrested on a homicide we have 7 days to get the case in front of a grandjury. Any evidence that you dig up eight days after the arrest the initial grand jury is not going to hear. Also, probably the last time you get to speak with the suspect is initially after the arrest. As the interviewer you would like to have as much information as possible and if the interview takes place immediately the interview wont be as successful. Finally, within a day of being arrested the suspect will be represented by an attorney who in an attempt to vigorously defend his/her client will put up as many roadblocks as possible to us developing evidence against the suspect. Now, all cases are different and some are manhunts from the start but in this case I don't think I would make an immediate arrest. It might feel good to the media to arrest a suspect and put him in county jail but justice is better served co convict a suspect and put him in state prison.

Thanks for injecting some real life perspective.

[Ksyrup]

Yes, thanks. Everything I know about criminal investigations I learned from Cops and The First 48. :)

[BYU 14]

I have experience with criminal investigations. I am a police detective and while my agency does not have straight homicide detectives, I have been the lead detective or assisting detective in 12 to 15 homicides.

Like most of you, my spidey senses tell me that this guy Zimmerman is creepy and that he is criminally responsible for the death of this young man. The caveat to this is that I only know what news outlets are telling me (dont forget they are in the business of selling advertising. Also, sometimes my spidey senses are wrong (but not usually).

To defend Molson a tiny bit, he reads like a person who has had to try to prove a case in court before. Where some of you see a person who is trying to explain away Zimmerman's behavior I see a person who refuses to go off half-cocked and act on knee-jerk reactions. Skydog and ksyrup are the same way and I think I agree with everything the three wrote.

To NOT defend the investigating police agency, The statement given by the Chief regarding running a colorblind investigation and not being believed because he is white seems like a stupid thing to say. Its like this guy has never been criticized in the press before. Generally, If I was running the investigation, my only comment would be that this is an ongoing investigation and we have no further comment at this time. Regarding the evidenciary issues the press has reported about phonecalls and cell phones and witness statements, the press gets that stuff wrong so often that you shouldnt make any judgments based on it.

I will also comment to the people who wanted Zimmerman arrested the day of the occurance. Generally, the last thing you want to do is arrest the suspect. I don't mean you don't want to arrest the person, I mean in a perfect world it would be the last step in the initial investigation. In my jurisdiction, once a person is arrested on a homicide we have 7 days to get the case in front of a grandjury. Any evidence that you dig up eight days after the arrest the initial grand jury is not going to hear. Also, probably the last time you get to speak with the suspect is initially after the arrest. As the interviewer you would like to have as much information as possible and if the interview takes place immediately the interview wont be as successful. Finally, within a day of being arrested the suspect will be represented by an attorney who in an attempt to vigorously defend his/her client will put up as many roadblocks as possible to us developing evidence against the suspect. Now, all cases are different and some are manhunts from the start but in this case I don't think I would make an immediate arrest. It might feel good to the media to arrest a suspect and put him in county jail but justice is better served co convict a suspect and put him in state prison.

Excellent post, thank you for sharing your perspective.

[Glengoyne]

Great Post JC.

[JediKooter]

...and while my agency does not have straight homicide detectives...

That's a pretty progressive department you work for with them only hiring gay homicide detectives.



On a serious note: Excellent post.

[RedKingGold]

Thread closed.

[Ksyrup]

They have a strict Ask and Tell policy.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Great post JC.

Two things:

1. In your professional opinion, what do you make of the reports of the police "correcting" witnesses?

2. Does the "I use my spidey senses" argument ever hold up in a court of law? That would rock to see a cop on the stand say "My spidey senses told me so." :D

[stevew]

Miami Heat don hoodies in response to death of teen Trayvon Martin - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/nba/truehoop/miamiheat/story/_/id/7728618/miami-heat-don-hoodies-response-death-teen-trayvon-martin)

[EagleFan]

My God this "Stand Your Ground," law needs to be changed. A judge ruled it applies to a man who stabbed an unarmed burgler after chasing him more than a block.

Miami judge decides fatal stabbing was self-defense - 03/21/2012 | MiamiHerald.com (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/v-print/2706789/miami-judge-stabbing-in-the-back.html)

I don't have a major issue with that one. Once a criminal crosses that line all bets are off.

[EagleFan]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/23/10830530-geraldo-rivera-blames-hoodie-for-trayvons-death-critics-tell-him-to-zip-it-up


Holy Sh*t, Belichick is screwed!!!!

[Buccaneer]

I find it interesting those that have advocated (as all should) the strength of our judicial system is measured in how well we defend the accused are willing to throw the book at this apparent loser and then string him up. Our judicial system has to be applied to all citizens. Hypocrites.

[bronconick]

I don't have a major issue with that one. Once a criminal crosses that line all bets are off.

So, what level of a crime has to be committed in "crossing the line" so you can chase them down and stab them to death?

Shoplifting? Running a red light and hitting your bumper? A vehicle is a deadly weapon after all.

[sabotai]

U.S. News - Geraldo Rivera blames hoodie for Trayvon's death; critics tell him to zip it up (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/23/10830530-geraldo-rivera-blames-hoodie-for-trayvons-death-critics-tell-him-to-zip-it-up)


Holy Sh*t, Belichick is screwed!!!!


“I think the hoodie is as much responsible for Trayvon Martin’s death as George Zimmerman was.”

He added: "You have to recognize that this whole stylizing yourself as a gangsta, you’re going to be a gangsta-wannabe, well people are going to perceive you as a menace."



http://www.barking-squirrel.com/picard-facepalm.jpg

[cmp]

“I think the hoodie is as much responsible for Trayvon Martin’s death as George Zimmerman was.”

He added: "You have to recognize that this whole stylizing yourself as a gangsta, you’re going to be a gangsta-wannabe, well people are going to perceive you as a menace."

Damn, I'm wearing a hoodie right now. I guess I better not go out in public.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Not a single Republican candidate cited Zimmerman's 2nd Amendment rights. Wimps.

[EagleFan]

So, what level of a crime has to be committed in "crossing the line" so you can chase them down and stab them to death?

Shoplifting? Running a red light and hitting your bumper? A vehicle is a deadly weapon after all.

Common sense.

Commit a crime against someone, you deserve what you get. You break into someone's house and that is going over the line... all bets are off.

Shoplifting is not a crime against someone, a traffic accident is not a crime.

[Autumn]

What if they egg your house? Can you stab them yet?

[larrymcg421]

I find it interesting those that have advocated (as all should) the strength of our judicial system is measured in how well we defend the accused are willing to throw the book at this apparent loser and then string him up. Our judicial system has to be applied to all citizens. Hypocrites.

Yay, I'm so glad you've come back to once again to teach us a lesson and call us all hypocrites. I mean, this is such a stupid post. I guess I'm not allowed to be upset that someone got murdered and the killer is being shielded by the police and a stupid law just because I support defendant rights? That makes absolutely no sense. No one is saying he shouldn't have all the rights of the accused. And this is yet another example of you calling out supposed hypocrites on one side of an issue, but not the other. Maybe one day you'll come to the realization that you're the biggest hypocrite here.

[molson]

Yay, I'm so glad you've come back to once again to teach us a lesson and call us all hypocrites. I mean, this is such a stupid post. I guess I'm not allowed to be upset that someone got murdered and the killer is being shielded by the police and a stupid law just because I support defendant rights? That makes absolutely no sense. No one is saying he shouldn't have all the rights of the accused. And this is yet another example of you calling out supposed hypocrites on one side of an issue, but not the other. Maybe one day you'll come to the realization that you're the biggest hypocrite here.

You and others making assumptions about the motives of police/prosecutors (here and in general) is the same as people making assumptions about your motives, or the motives of other people who have taken up this case as something of a cause (i.e., calling you a hypocrite, wondering how you would react if the races were swapped, etc.) It's unfair in both cases, and it can be really hurtful to be the subject of such assumptions when they're unwarranted.

Edit: Or on the other hand, if they're all fair questions to ask, then they should be fair questions to ask in all directions. Maybe we should all just assume everyone is motivated by race and power and politics all the time, and its everyone's burden to prove that every word or action or opinion, is not.

Double Edit: Also too though, I could see an argument that if someone has some position of official power, even if that's as low as a patrol officer or low-level government official of some type, they SHOULD be subject to more potentially unfair assumptions than a private citizen, as kind of a check on government, and at the individual level, they just have to suck it up. I buy that (though maybe they should get some small hazard pay or something to cover that, maybe you'd get more qualified people willing to be a villain for such otherwise low pay :)) Still, I think in a civilized society, there should be some reasonable check on THAT as well, because emotions can just take things to a terrible place if that goes too far, and one of the roles of government, and the constitution, and law itself, is to provide a check on that kind of emotion. Because the people do have a lot of power. "The people" are capable of bad things when fueled by emotion, especially when it's racially charged emotion. (And I don't think we're anything close to that kind of "bad" here in this case, just thinking out loud about this phenomenon).

[Buccaneer]

No one is saying he shouldn't have all the rights of the accused.

Yes they are. Molson understands the point which apparently escaped you in your emotions. Any one of us can be pissed off at what happened (I can't stand the likes of Zimmerman) but that's irrelevant in the charges and prosecution that might apply and the defense of such. John Adams defended the redcoats after the Boston Massacre for a very good reason, while his cousin and other revengers were calling for their heads.

[RendeR]

Common sense.

Commit a crime against someone, you deserve what you get. You break into someone's house and that is going over the line... all bets are off.

Shoplifting is not a crime against someone, a traffic accident is not a crime.


neither common nor generally sensible.

Killing someone is also a crime, if you chase someone down and kill them you should go to jail. What happened 5 minutes before that is irrelevant. you murdered someone who was RUNNING AWAY. If you commit this crime you're a bigger failure than the guy who broke into your house.

Shoplifting is a crime against many, including everyone who works for the store. Obviously under your code of conduct this crime is far greater than breaking into a home, you're harming far more people.

[Havok]

Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman (http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012)


I don't know what to think about this case, but after reading this article, all i can think of is the Duke lacrosse scandal all over again. Maybe this story is all bullshit, who knows. I just get irate when everyone and their mom are jumping to conclusions in this case without all the facts. (Miami Heat and their stupid hoodie thing, and Obama chiming in for no apparent reason, like he did with the Harvard professor.)

I wonder if this would have made top headlines if the shooters name had been Jose Martinez? doubtful....

[molson]

And one other thing about assumptions - I know when I talk about this and raise the potential challenges of the case, and the weak point of the case, and why the police MAY have done what they did (and they could all be dirty racists, I don't know them, I have no idea), I can feel the assumption that, I wouldn't be nearly this cautious in a prosecution-sense if it was another type of case. That's absolutely not true. I am very prosecution-cautious in any type of cause. Which is one of the reasons I feel SO strongly that foreign terrorists/war criminals should be tried in military tribunals. Because in U.S. civilian courts, the guilty can and do go free, and are often never charged, for all kinds of reasons, by design, and that's just not something I feel we need to extend to foreign terrorists. If we had tried OBL or KSM in a civilian court, and a careless prosecutor forgets to disclose some piece of evidence (out of thousands of pieces of evidence), or if a confession was illegally coerced through torture, then all criminal charges should probably be dismissed and they should be free (oversimplification there to make a point). Of course, guys like that can never be freed, so I think it makes a mockery of the U.S. civilian criminal system to apply it to them (unless you're willing to free them, I guess)

[M GO BLUE!!!]

If Martin "attacked" Zimmerman, what provoked him? Zimmerman was twice his size. Lethal force was required?

All we know is one man made a habit of calling police whenever he saw suspicious (example: black) persons. He was told to not follow Martin. His response: "These assholes are always getting away." Apparently they fought (the catalyst of which is unknown) and the skinny kid ended up shot dead.

If someone confronts & accuses me of wrongdoing, won't leave it alone, then puts his hands on me, I will defend myself.

It does a great disservice to label Zimmerman a victim or hero. He went out looking for trouble. He found it.

I highly doubt that Zimmerman asked politely how his evening was going, then was attacked by a combination of Bruce Lee & Roberto Duran.

I hope Zimmerman is proud of the way he kept his community safe from a kid with a soda & a bag of skittles.

[RendeR]

You don't shoot someone in a fist fight.

[Karlifornia]

You don't shoot someone in a fist fight.

I agree with this. The Zimmerman guy sounds like the Ronnie character in Observe and Report. This was his one big chance to finally be the vigilante hero he always wanted to be.

All of the racism and reverse-racism stuff needs to calm down and wait for the dust to settle. A lesson will be learned from this, we just don't know what it is yet.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

...Obama chiming in for no apparent reason, like he did with the Harvard professor.)

You forgot Romney & Santorum, who felt they needed to echo Obama "for no apparent reason." (to use your words)

(As for the Harvard prof... Obama's statement on that should have just been "I don't know exactly what happened, but I know him. He is a good man. It would be out of place for the President to comment further on this."

By the way... can you tell I'm sick to fucking death of the people who bitch because Obama keeps waking up every damn morning?

[molson]

You don't shoot someone in a fist fight.

Ideally. But then when they go and do, its a friggen mess.

[Havok]

By the way... can you tell I'm sick to fucking death of the people who bitch because Obama keeps waking up every damn morning?

Don't worry, we won't have to wake up to him as president much longer.

Now back on topic, So Zimmerman was 'much bigger' then Trayvon. Last i heard, Trayvon was 6'3 and very athletic, and Zimmerman was a short fat guy.

But again, maybe he is a big guy, i don't know that facts on that one.

[RedKingGold]

Everyone needs to chill the fuck out instead of jumping to conclusions...on both sides.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Don't worry, we won't have to wake up to him as president much longer.


Just another four years & 10 months, then we'll finally be free from listening to people bitch about him as President...

Then they can whine about him out of office.

[Havok]

You don't shoot someone in a fist fight.

ok, I'll give you a gun, then I'll sit on top of you and bash your face in, think you'll shot eventually? (especially if it's just me and you, and you don't know me?)

just sayin...

But maybe Zimmerman started the whole fight, i honestly have no clue. But neither does anyone else, and turning this case into a racial circus is ridiculous.

[Havok]

Just another four years & 10 months, then we'll finally be free from listening to people bitch about him as President...

Then they can whine about him out of office.

Keep dreaming, your boy's done, just like that city you live in :p

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Can we all at least agree that they guy who sent a threatening email about the police chief & his family may be the biggest idiot out there?

[Havok]

Can we all at least agree that they guy who sent a threatening email about the police chief & his family may be the biggest idiot out there?

agreed

now back to the basketball game!

[bronconick]

Common sense.

Commit a crime against someone, you deserve what you get. You break into someone's house and that is going over the line... all bets are off.

Shoplifting is not a crime against someone, a traffic accident is not a crime.

Well, you're fine with him being killed for breaking into a car to steal a radio, so you're fine with property damage being enough to kill them. How much property?

Shoplifting is a crime against a corporation or business. Corporations have rights as people in the United States, therefore their security should be able to gun you down in the parking lot, right?

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Keep dreaming, your boy's done, just like that city you live in :p

I'm not thrilled with Obama. I just see nothing better out there to vote for.

As for my city... nowhere to go but up, baby!

[bulletsponge]

You don't shoot someone in a fist fight.

i hate to say this but..... you do if you want to win. and lets not fool ourselves, a fist fight can turn into someone dying without weapons real fast all by itself.

if i ever got into a fist fight and i thought the other guy seriously wanted to hurt me, id shoot him (if i had a gun) before i let him get me to the ground

[Crapshoot]

Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman (http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012)


I don't know what to think about this case, but after reading this article, all i can think of is the Duke lacrosse scandal all over again. Maybe this story is all bullshit, who knows. I just get irate when everyone and their mom are jumping to conclusions in this case without all the facts. (Miami Heat and their stupid hoodie thing, and Obama chiming in for no apparent reason, like he did with the Harvard professor.)

I wonder if this would have made top headlines if the shooters name had been Jose Martinez? doubtful....

Yeah, why would the Heat players be upset that a unarmed black kid got shot for wearing a hoodie? :rolleyes:

[BYU 14]

ok, I'll give you a gun, then I'll sit on top of you and bash your face in, think you'll shot eventually? (especially if it's just me and you, and you don't know me?)

just sayin...

But maybe Zimmerman started the whole fight, i honestly have no clue. But neither does anyone else, and turning this case into a racial circus is ridiculous.

How about just calling it what it appears to be? An overzealous wannba be neighborhood watch guy pursuing someone he was asked not to pursue. He catches up with him, the other person fights back as many would, Zimmerman starts getting his ass kicked and shoots him.

Who initiated the confrontation after they were told not to?

It will be interesting to see whay happens when the facts all come out, but Zimmerman could have avoided everything by just doing what people watching neighborhoods are supposed to do....Watch.

[miked]

Obama chimed in because he's a politician, millions of people have signed petitions and obviously care about this, and he was asked about. To the horror of everyone who hates the president, he said:

"When I think about this boy I think about my own kids,” Obama told reporters at the White House. “And I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this and that everybody pulls together – federal, state and local - to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened.”

Just terrible for him to reflect on the fact that it could be anybody's kid and we should investigate. Clearly all part of his horrible liberal agenda.

[RainMaker]

Don't worry, we won't have to wake up to him as president much longer.

Now back on topic, So Zimmerman was 'much bigger' then Trayvon. Last i heard, Trayvon was 6'3 and very athletic, and Zimmerman was a short fat guy.

But again, maybe he is a big guy, i don't know that facts on that one.

Zimmerman had 100 pounds on him. That's a pretty massive advantage in a fight regardless of how athletic you are.

[illinifan999]

Zimmerman had 100 pounds on him. That's a pretty massive advantage in a fight regardless of how athletic you are.

Disagree. I've seen many situations where smaller, more athletic person absolutely destroyed an overweight individual.

[RainMaker]

Disagree. I've seen many situations where smaller, more athletic person absolutely destroyed an overweight individual.

It's still really tough. 100 pounds is a huge advantage. Even 20 pounds in a fight is a big advantage. Just much more difficult to take down and control.

Zimmerman also wasn't some 65 year old guy. He was young and fit enough to want to be a police officer. Give me a fully grown adult at 240 over a teenager at 140 anyday in a fight.

Regardless, even if Trayvon ended up on top in a scuffle, he was being stalked at night by a stranger.

[Flasch186]

Not reading the thread or participating but Ill bet Jimga has some gold in here :)

[King of New York]

Regardless, even if Trayvon ended up on top in a scuffle, he was being stalked at night by a stranger.

This. It's called neighborhood watch, not neighborhood chase and confront, for a reason. IMHO, if you chase someone who is doing nothing more than walking around, and you catch up to them, then nothing that you do afterward to the person whom you chased constitutes "self-defense." Self-defense is when you are just minding your own business and someone else comes up to you and starts trouble. Even the National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/294006/standing-your-ground-and-vigilantism-robert-verbruggen?pg=1) gets this.

[CrimsonFox]

another reason to dislike Florida...

[molson]

This. It's called neighborhood watch, not neighborhood chase and confront, for a reason. IMHO, if you chase someone who is doing nothing more than walking around, and you catch up to them, then nothing that you do afterward to the person whom you chased constitutes "self-defense." Self-defense is when you are just minding your own business and someone else comes up to you and starts trouble. Even the National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/294006/standing-your-ground-and-vigilantism-robert-verbruggen?pg=1) gets this.

Self-defense is whatever the Florida legislature says it is. (and however Florida appellate courts have interpreted what the Florida legislature says it is).

[illinifan999]

It's still really tough. 100 pounds is a huge advantage. Even 20 pounds in a fight is a big advantage. Just much more difficult to take down and control.

Zimmerman also wasn't some 65 year old guy. He was young and fit enough to want to be a police officer. Give me a fully grown adult at 240 over a teenager at 140 anyday in a fight.

Regardless, even if Trayvon ended up on top in a scuffle, he was being stalked at night by a stranger.


I don't know. I've seen many situations where a younger, more athletic individual just absolutely dominates an older, heavier person. Situations where I'm sitting with a person while an ambulance is coming to take them to a hospital kind of domination.

Knowing how to fight can easily offset a weight advantage. Not that I'm saying Trayvon knew how to fight or Zimmerman was a slug.

[molson]

Two of the other controversial criminal cases that were discussed here in the past were the guy that killed the two kids that tried to rob his pharmacy and the guy who chased the home invader down the street and killed him. Here, Zimmerman apparently acted like an overzealous wanna-be police officer goof and it seems so many are willing to say that since he overstepped the bounds of standard neighborhood watch protocol, then whatever happened to him was his own fault and he was on his own. Where in those other two situations, it seems the consensus was that even a home invader and pharmacy burglar had a right and expectation for the people they victimized to act completely rationally in response to the crimes against them - everybody wanted to string up the victimized store owner and homeowner. I think this shit is hard, where you find yourself in a violent situation you don't expect, even if it's by some questionable decisions on your own part (and especially when it's brought on by violent criminals acting against you) However it goes down, it's a lot different to me than the domestic violence murderer, or the gang murderer, who are a dime a dozen and don't get any publicity.

[RainMaker]

I understand what you're saying. I just think it is a big advantage, even if it doesn't end up that way. Most of us aren't going and picking fights with a guy who has 100 pounds on us for a reason.

One other thing that bothers me. Even if Trayvon hit him, isn't that exactly what we teach kids to do? I remember learning about that in school. If an adult stranger confronts you, kick, punch, scream and do whatever you have to.

Seriously, pretend it's your kid. An adult male twice his/her size is stalking them in a car. Do you tell them to not fight back in that situation? Obviously Zimmerman wasn't looking to abduct the kid, but his actions are straight out of that playbook. What was Trayvon supposed to think was happening? And why would he just randomly start punching a guy twice his size?

[RainMaker]

Two of the other controversial criminal cases that were discussed here in the past were the guy that killed the two kids that tried to rob his pharmacy and the guy who chased the home invader down the street and killed him. Here, Zimmerman apparently acted like an overzealous wanna-be police officer goof and it seems so many are willing to say that since he overstepped the bounds of standard neighborhood watch protocol, then whatever happened to him was his own fault and he was on his own. Where in those other two situations, it seems the consensus was that even a home invader and pharmacy burglar had a right and expectation for the people they victimized to act completely rationally in response to the crimes against them - everybody wanted to string up the victimized store owner and homeowner. I think this shit is hard, where you find yourself in a violent situation you don't expect, even if it's by some questionable decisions on your own part (and especially when it's brought on by violent criminals acting against you) However it goes down, it's a lot different to me than the domestic violence murderer, or the gang murderer, who are a dime a dozen and don't get any publicity.

Trayvon Martin was not a burglar or home invader. He committed no crime. I don't see how they are comparable at all.

[molson]

Trayvon Martin was not a burglar or home invader. He committed no crime. I don't see how they are comparable at all.

I wasn't comparing Martin to the burglars, I was thinking about the the idea that if you violate neighborhood watch protocols you're responsible for anything bad that results. Where on the other hand, our society doesn't seem to think that if you commit violent robberies/home invasions you're responsible for anything bad that results.

I'm not saying that's the only theory at play here. Zimmerman being guilty of a crime isn't necessarily dependent on him violating neighborhood watch protocols. Someone can rationally think that doesn't matter at all, and that the real problem was his actions once he got to the confrontation, or whatever the hell it was. I just think I disagree with the idea that if he acted stupidly or outside the scope of neighborhood watch protocol, he loses all rights to defend himself no matter what. The nuts and bolts of whatever happened after he started following Martin are still important, IMO, in both a moral and legal sense.

[RainMaker]

I don't know, I think he did lose all rights to defend himself. It's like picking a fight with someone out of the blue and then killing them when the other guy gets the advantage. "The other person fought back so I was in my right to kill them". Every abusive husband would love that rule I'm sure.

[King of New York]

Self-defense is whatever the Florida legislature says it is. (and however Florida appellate courts have interpreted what the Florida legislature says it is).

And the Florida legislator who sponsored the bill has stated quite clearly (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/03/21/do-stand-your-ground-laws-encourage-vigilantes/the-law-is-needed-but-not-in-this-case) that he did not intend it to cover behavior such as Zimmerman's: "As the prime sponsor of this legislation in the Florida House, I'd like to clarify that there is nothing in the law that provides for the opportunity to pursue and confront individuals. It simply lets those who would be victims use force in self-defense." If the guy who wrote the bill says that Stand Your Ground does not apply, then I think it is safe to say that Zimmerman's actions do not constitute self-defense--surely the appellate courts will be good strict constructionists and use the legislator's intent when ruling on the law.

[molson]

I don't know, I think he did lose all rights to defend himself. It's like picking a fight with someone out of the blue and then killing them when the other guy gets the advantage. "The other person fought back so I was in my right to kill them". Every abusive husband would love that rule I'm sure.

If the evidence showed that Zimmerman initiated a physical fight and then Martin got the better of him, and then Zimmerman shot him, I can kind of see that, but even then - the key charge there to me would be Zimmerman's initial aggravated battery in starting the fight. I'd want to charge him with that, argue for an aggravated sentence (i.e. years) based on the end result, but I'd have a tough time calling it murder, or charging him with murder.

And to me, robbing that pharmacy or invading that house is MUCH more "picking a fight", I'm much more comfortable saying that those guys are on their own, and that if they're killed in the commission of those violent crimes, it sucks for them, but they're not victims in any shape or form. So I'd be reluctant to want to prosecute anyone too severely for, at worst, acting irrationally when they were victims of a violent crime. (in the same way, if Martin had been armed and had killed a weirdo neighborhood watchman that was following him around and breaking every neighborhood watch protocol and physically confronting and restraining him - I wouldn't see that as murder either, though maybe as a lesser crime depending on the facts).

[King of New York]

I don't know, I think he did lose all rights to defend himself. It's like picking a fight with someone out of the blue and then killing them when the other guy gets the advantage. "The other person fought back so I was in my right to kill them". Every abusive husband would love that rule I'm sure.

This too. You don't even have to wait for the other guy to get the advantage--you just make them look crossly at you and then, claiming that you feel threatened, you blow them away. Any law that permits you to kill someone in a public place because you "feel threatened," or that permits you to provoke a fight and then to kill the person with whom you are fighting, is basically giving every citizen an easy way to commit murder with impunity.

[King of New York]

If the evidence showed that Zimmerman initiated a physical fight and then Martin got the better of him, and then Zimmerman shot him, I can kind of see that, but even then - the key charge there to me would be Zimmerman's initial aggravated battery in starting the fight. I'd want to charge him with that, argue for an aggravated sentence (i.e. years) based on the end result, but I'd have a tough time calling it murder, or charging him with murder.

And to me, robbing that pharmacy or invading that house is MUCH more "picking a fight", I'm much more comfortable saying that those guys are on their own, and that if they're killed in the commission of those violent crimes, it sucks for them, but they're not victims in any shape or form. So I'd be reluctant to want to prosecute anyone too severely for, at worst, acting irrationally when they were victims of a violent crime. (in the same way, if Martin had been armed and had killed a weirdo neighborhood watchman that was following him around and breaking every neighborhood watch protocol and physically confronting and restraining him - I wouldn't see that as murder either, though maybe as a lesser crime depending on the facts).

I agree with the second point, but not the first one. Think about it--if you wanted to kill someone, all you would have to do is to instigate a fight with that person, kill them with the weapon that you just happened to have on you, and then face nothing worse than an assault charge.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

How do we know that Trayvon Martin didn't head out looking to beat somebody's ass, get a bag of skittles and a soda at the story, then find his perfect mark on the way home. Hey, here's this fat slob... I'm gonna jump him for no reason other than to have some fun & beat his ass!

Then, the hero of our story, George Zimmerman (aka The Protector,) while keeping watch for hoodlums, is violently attacked! "Please stop!" he cried in vain. He does the only thing he can do. As a last resort, he pulls his gun in an attempt to ward off his attacker, shooting with a tear in his eye as he tries to save his own life from this vile attacker whose bare hands could have killed any man... and likely would have if not for the 2nd Amendment.

If the poor, innocent George Zimmerman, who was simply minding his business, had not killed his ruthless attacker, he would surely have been the one killed. He is a true hero to us all.

Did you ever know that you're my hero,
and everything I would like to be?
I can fly higher than an eagle,
'cause you are the wind beneath my wings.

Oh wait... he called the cops and lamented how "These assholes always get away" and continued to follow despite being told not to. Never mind.

[molson]

I agree with the second point, but not the first one. Think about it--if you wanted to kill someone, all you would have to do is to instigate a fight with that person, kill them with the weapon that you just happened to have on you, and then face nothing worse than an assault charge.

Ya could be, I may be too reluctant to see things as 1st degree murder, too reluctant to find that pre-meditation - I just see a world of difference between the typical 1st degree murder v. tragedies like this....but the end result is ultimately the same for the families of both so I get that too. I may be too forgiving generally, of the killings that take place in these chaotic, unexpected situations - it's just an entirely different category to me. I've never been a situation like that, but I've read enough about them, heard their testimony, etc, who knows what we would do in those situations, what our breaking point would be. Normal, non-criminal people don't initiate and commit murders, but when we find ourselves in a street fight (even if we started it), or someone breaks into our house, how can we judge that exactly the same as the clear premediated killer?

[RainMaker]

If the evidence showed that Zimmerman initiated a physical fight and then Martin got the better of him, and then Zimmerman shot him, I can kind of see that, but even then - the key charge there to me would be Zimmerman's initial aggravated battery in starting the fight. I'd want to charge him with that, argue for an aggravated sentence (i.e. years) based on the end result, but I'd have a tough time calling it murder, or charging him with murder.


As King pointed out, that would just mean you can pick a fight with someone and just so happen to pull out your deadly weapon when they fight back and only get charged with aggravated battery.

I just don't see how this ever ends up in a self-defense scenario. The only thing that has made it one is the fact Trayvon was black. If he was a white kid doing the same thing, Zimmerman would be in jail right now and we all know it.

[RainMaker]

Ya could be, I may be too reluctant to see things as 1st degree murder, too reluctant to find that pre-meditation - I just see a world of difference between the typical 1st degree murder v. tragedies like this....but the end result is ultimately the same for the families of both so I get that too.

I don't think it's 1st degree murder, but it's either 2nd degree murder or maybe manslaughter. And I'm not sure "black teenager walking in my neighborhood" is grounds to argue the emotional element required for manslaughter.

[Telle]

... but I'd have a tough time calling it murder, or charging him with murder.


So how about a lesser charge? I agree that murder may be too much... negligent homicide perhaps? Or something of that nature?

At the very least there needs to be a thorough investigation, and most likely a trial. Hopefully all the details will come out then. And if things look to have gone like they appear to have, there needs to be a clear statement made that a boy's life was ended unjustly by this man.

[molson]

If he was a white kid doing the same thing, Zimmerman would be in jail right now and we all know it.

Right, because police officers and prosecutors are all racists and all of their decisions are racially motivated, I know your feelings on that, which makes rational discussions in this area with you completely impossible.

[Telle]

Right, because police officers and prosecutors are all racists and all of their decisions are racially motivated, I know your feelings on that, which makes rational discussions in this area with you completely impossible.

I don't think that you can say that nobody's perceptions in this whole situation are not in any way colored by race. Could some police officers and prosecutors be thinking to themselves "some black kid in a hoody walking through a gated community late at night.. I can see how he saw that as suspicious, and then things just got out of hand"? Would that make them "racist"? I don't know. But totally dismissing race out of the equation is just a bit much for me.

[chadritt]

Ive been stopped by the cops three times in the last year while walking late at night with my hoodie on, apparently it looks suspicious in my area too. Im REALLY glad that it was the cops who stopped me and not someone like this guy. 2 times they never even got out of their car, they just asked me who I was, what I was doing, where I lived, and if I was on parole. The third time was more involved because the Hollywood arsonist had literally just struck 2 exits away on the freeway but even then none of the 6 cops even made a hint of a move for a gun because its just stupid to do that for some who LOOKS suspicious.

This guy clearly wasnt trained for what he was doing, if he was then he wouldve realized this was an unarmed kid and nothing wouldve come from it. You know.....just like a real authority figure is trained to do in this situation. If your argument is "well hes not trained" then why the hell was he trying to stop a kid by using a gun in the first place? *edited to add* Thats why I hope this guy gets serious time when he finally gets charged. If you dont know the proper way to do something like this then you either wait for cops or accept responsibility for the results of your actions.

[molson]

I don't think that you can say that nobody's perceptions in this whole situation are not in any way colored by race. Could some police officers and prosecutors be thinking to themselves "some black kid in a hoody walking through a gated community late at night.. I can see how he saw that as suspicious, and then things just got out of hand"? Would that make them "racist"? I don't know. But totally dismissing race out of the equation is just a bit much for me.

Since the burden of proof is on government officials to show that their actions are not racist (they're all assumed to be racists without that proof), myself and judicial clerk have discussed earlier many of the other factors at play that go into arrest decisions. Maybe race was a factor here, maybe it wasn't, but it isn't clear at all from the facts that we know here. If we're just going to make the assumptions off the bat that all of the decisions were absolutely based on race, it's difficult to have a rational conversation.

I guess what bugs me, perhaps irrationally, is how people throw out that stuff when they don't understand the process and don't understand or just ignore the other factors involved. It's just racist whenever the police or prosecutors make any decision that disadvantages a minority. When that's the starting point, where can you go? If someone can make a case of racism against a specific individual, that's serious, and we all should listen. I just hate the general racial cynicism. If you want to raise the question, fine, I don't think it's always appropriate to do so, and I think those racial assumptions can be very hurtful to the individuals you're making them against, but whatever, ask a question. But Rainmaker has already decided that everyone involved was racist, and that's what I objected to.

[RainMaker]

Right, because police officers and prosecutors are all racists and all of their decisions are racially motivated, I know your feelings on that, which makes rational discussions in this area with you completely impossible.

Do you honestly think that if this was a teenage white kid we would be in this situation? I'm not saying everyone's a racist, just that there is no way this goes down the same way if he's white. I don't know how anyone could argue that.

Put it this way. Explain to someone the story. Tell them a grown man twice the size of a teenager was stalking him in a neighborhood as he walked home from the store. This teenager has no record yet the adult male has had a few minor violent run-ins. The situation ended up with the unarmed teenager dead. If you leave out race when telling someone this story, is there any human being out there that would be claiming this was self-defense?

[molson]

Do you honestly think that if this was a teenage white kid we would be in this situation? I'm not saying everyone's a racist, just that there is no way this goes down the same way if he's white. I don't know how anyone could argue that.



Yes, an absolutely non-racist cop could have decided not to arrest Zimmerman based on entirely non-racist factors. Yes, that is possible. To conclude otherwise is "every cop is a racist" type stuff.

Edit: Zimmerman could be talking like crazy to officers now, we don't know. All those statements are 100% admissible and they'll hang him if they're inconsistent with any of the physical evidence or the 911 calls. As JC pointed out, when you arrest him, all that's over, now you lose that, and you get motions to dismiss and motions to suppress flying at you everywhere. So if you're in that position to make that decision, you have to choose - do I do the right thing for proving this case and whatever crime took place, or do I hold back and weaken the case so that nobody calls me a racist? The good prosecutor/cop, the courageous prosecutor/cop, of course picks the first option. It's just a hypothetical, and it may not apply in this case - but it's a very common issue cops and prosecutors have to deal with - it's not often that the perceptions against you blow up nationally like this of course, but on a smaller scale, it's a common issue. Prosecutors/police DO refrain from immediate arrests in trickier cases all the time, and even decline to pursue charges - even where the defendant is black. I know people don't believe that, and that's a sad racial cynicism that isn't helpful, and is in fact hurtful. And maybe its an understandable cynicism based on our country's history, but whatever, I just still thinks it sucks and it holds back progress.

[Telle]

Since the burden of proof is on government officials to show that their actions are not racist (they're all assumed to be racists without that proof), myself and judicial clerk have discussed earlier many of the other factors at play that go into arrest decisions. Maybe race was a factor here, maybe it wasn't, but it isn't clear at all from the facts that we know here. If we're just going to make the assumptions off the bat that all of the decisions were absolutely based on race, it's difficult to have a rational conversation.

I guess what bugs me, perhaps irrationally, is how people throw out that stuff when they don't understand the process and don't understand or just ignore the other factors involved. It's just racist whenever the police or prosecutors make any decision that disadvantages a minority. When that's the starting point, where can you go? If someone can make a case of racism against a specific individual, that's serious, and we all should listen. I just hate the general racial cynicism. If you want to raise the question, fine, I don't think it's always appropriate to do so, and I think those racial assumptions can be very hurtful, but whatever, ask a question. But Rainmaker has already decided that everyone involved was racist (he thinks all cops are racist if you've read previous threads), and that's what I objected to.

I think what everyone is saying is that the whole situation would seem a whole lot more suspicious to law personnel if Martin had been white. Would that have led to a more likely arrest? I don't know. Given the laws in the state and the way the whole grand-jury thing works.. maybe not. But I bet you a ton that there would be a whole lot fewer armchair cops/prosecutors/whatever not nodding their little heads along going "I can see that happening" if this kid had been white. There would be more question of why the hell the guy was pursuing him to begin with.

Let's take things a step further. If instead of there being a black boy in a hoody there had been a white girl in a tank-top that ended up shot dead by a "neighborhood watch" guy, don't you think there would be fewer people defending the shooter and more people wondering just what the fuck happened?

And yes I realize that the shooter doesn't exactly have as many defenders as the kid does.. but you still have people saying "well if he wasn't wearing a hoody" and whatnot, and you know there's plenty thinking "wtf was a black kid doing there that night anyways"... and if he had been white, that wouldn't be happening.

So in short.. I don't know if the law enforcement is being racially biased or not in this case. But I do think that there's a certain segment of the public that in some way or another, deep inside, believes that Martin got what was coming to him for the crime of being black in the wrong place at the wrong time. And that is wrong.

[Havok]

Zimmerman had 100 pounds on him. That's a pretty massive advantage in a fight regardless of how athletic you are.


He's a short fat guy from all accounts. I'm 5'10, 185 former athlete myself and i workout out 4 times a week. I would destroy a 5'4 285 lbs slob in seconds.

[molson]

I think what everyone is saying is that the whole situation would seem a whole lot more suspicious to law personnel if Martin had been white. Would that have led to a more likely arrest? I don't know. Given the laws in the state and the way the whole grand-jury thing works.. maybe not. But I bet you a ton that there would be a whole lot fewer armchair cops/prosecutors/whatever not nodding their little heads along going "I can see that happening" if this kid had been white. There would be more question of why the hell the guy was pursuing him to begin with.

Let's take things a step further. If instead of there being a black boy in a hoody there had been a white girl in a tank-top that ended up shot dead by a "neighborhood watch" guy, don't you think there would be fewer people defending the shooter and more people wondering just what the fuck happened?

And yes I realize that the shooter doesn't exactly have as many defenders as the kid does.. but you still have people saying "well if he wasn't wearing a hoody" and whatnot, and you know there's plenty thinking "wtf was a black kid doing there that night anyways"... and if he had been white, that wouldn't be happening.

So in short.. I don't know if the law enforcement is being racially biased or not in this case. But I do think that there's a certain segment of the public that in some way or another, deep inside, believes that Martin got what was coming to him for the crime of being black in the wrong place at the wrong time. And that is wrong.

Well, now you're talking about what the public perception is and I 100% agree - the coverage/opinions of this case is completely different depending on the age/gender/race of the shooter/victim involved. I feel comfortable making that general statement, but I would be reluctant to take any random person and say, "well, you're only upset about this case because the victim is black, and this is your chance to make some political points," unless I actually had some other independent reason to suspect that was the case with that particular person. It would be totally ridiculous to go up to some stranger and make those kinds of accusations based on nothing more than the fact that he's upset by this case. And I think that's basically what people are doing when they see an end result and assume that everyone involved from the law-enforcement end made racially-based decisions. And like I said, maybe that's the burden of the government, and that's fair game, I just think it's worth acknowledging. Those are real people too, the majority of which are dedicated public servants who are not racist.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

He's a short fat guy from all accounts. I'm 5'10, 185 former athlete myself and i workout out 4 times a week. I would destroy a 5'4 285 lbs slob in seconds.

Very nice!

Now if one attacks you, don't fight back. He would apparently have the right to shoot you dead in self defense. Some might even laud him as some sort of hero.

[Telle]

Yeah I'm not one to jump in and say that this case would have been handled 100% different if Martin had been white. But I think at the same time you can't say that none of the law enforcement personnel had any thoughts that may have been colored by race. Thus I neither agree with those who say that the shooter would have been immediately arrested for murder if Martin had been white, nor with those who say that it's ridiculous to say the police or prosecutors might have racist inclinations.

So I think it's important to keep a close eye on any and all racial implications of this case, without necessarily accusing any individual involved with the case of acting improperly thus far.