Unarmed black 17 year old shot by Neighborhood watch captain in gated community...

Page 111 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Icepick

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2004
3,663
4
81
This young lady heard the beginning of the second confrontation.

http://gma.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin...-teen-death-recounts-063243901--abc-news.html

And they confirmed with cell phone records she was on the phone with Trayvon. Zimmerman started the whole thing.

This article also states that Zimmerman was not part of any registered neighborhood watch group either. This makes Zimmerman akin to a vigilante in my opinion and wholly responsible for the death of Martin.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
The thing that bothers me, even if you step back from a lot of stuff in this case. One thing is for sure, if you are telling me, that I can initiate a confrontation that turns physical. That I can then shoot and kill the person and be protected by claiming self defense, that just boggles the mind. And now knowing after the fact the person who died did nothing wrong, its just insane to think a guy is walking free.

I am pro-gun, for the castle law and "no duty to retreat" type laws.

BUT they need a provision (like texas has) that you are not to start a fight then use the law to kill the person.

seems a good way to kill someone you don't like. go up and slap them then let them hit back and kill them.

I agree classy this just blows my mind. the guy provoked the fight. he fallowed the kid. started the fight and when he gets his ass kicked he kills him. WTF!?
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
This article also states that Zimmerman was not part of any registered neighborhood watch group either. This makes Zimmerman akin to a vigilante in my opinion and wholly responsible for the death of Martin.

my only question. did he have a black shirt with a white skull on it?
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
Last edited:

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,708
514
126
I do wonder why it took them so long to get her to talk. But yes, she changes everything and will be the reason why Mr. Zimmerman is ultimately arrested.

Well she is a minor. It could be that her parents didn't want her to get involved at first or maybe she was scared for some. reason.

Remember unlike the other minor who is a witness she was on the phone with Trayvon Martin and very likely in another neighborhood.
 
Last edited:

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
The Sanford police up until now have been the only ones to investigate. Even the family had to sue to get the 911 tapes released.

Well, a defense attorney might cast doubts on it based on the amount of time in which it took for her to come forward, during which she might have absorbed some of the reports and changed her testimony. That is all.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
The self-defense claim is coming from the fact that Trayvon was on top and beating him (verified by an eye witness). At that point Zimmerman felt he was in imminent danger of great bodily harm. According to the law he could force up to and including deadly force. None of the other circumstances are relevant based on the way the law is written.
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
Well she is a minor. Probably her parents didn't want her to get involved or she was scared for some reason. Remember unlike the other minor who is a witness she was on the phone with Trayvon Martin and very likely in another neighborhood.

Still, in that length it could have been contaminated so to speak by her exposure to news reports.
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,543
651
126
None of this is good to me however, no matter what you think or feel the law must be applied as it's written.

Yet the sponsor of the bill questions if this law should apply to Zimmerman since he was the one in pursuit and not standing his ground.
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
The self-defense claim is coming from the fact that Trayvon was on top and beating him (verified by an eye witness). At that point Zimmerman felt he was in imminent danger of great bodily harm. According to the law he could force up to and including deadly force. None of the other circumstances are relevant based on the way the law is written.

Not when you are the aggressor. There is plenty of eveidence now that shows clearly Zimmerman went out of his way to confront the teen. He had no legal right to do so. So the fight was a direct result of his confronting a stranger who had done nothing wrong. At the point this fight happened, Martin was well within his rights to defend himself. Who tried to retreat and who persistently sought out to confront?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I am pro-gun, for the castle law and "no duty to retreat" type laws.

BUT they need a provision (like texas has) that you are not to start a fight then use the law to kill the person.

seems a good way to kill someone you don't like. go up and slap them then let them hit back and kill them.

I agree classy this just blows my mind. the guy provoked the fight. he fallowed the kid. started the fight and when he gets his ass kicked he kills him. WTF!?
I agree, you should not be able to start a fight then claim self defense as justification for using deadly force.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
Well, a defense attorney might cast doubts on it based on the amount of time in which it took for her to come forward, during which she might have absorbed some of the reports and changed her testimony. That is all.

A defense attorney would do that.

Prosecution would do...
police lying about contents of 911 tape
police shaping testimony of witnesses
police not taking blood from Z to check for drugs alcohol because Z could not id street names in a neighborhood he patroled almost every day for a year
police giving Z leading question in the initial intervew instead of asking him just tell them what happened
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
Not when you are the aggressor. There is plenty of eveidence now that shows clearly Zimmerman went out of his way to confront the teen. He had no legal right to do so. So the fight was a direct result of his confronting a stranger who had done nothing wrong. At the point this fight happened, Martin was well within his rights to defend himself. Who tried to retreat and who persistently sought out to confront?

The difference between a gun and fists is sustained malice.

Punching someone for 45 seconds after he is on the ground is no longer self-defense.

a gun can stop someone in an instant. But you are not allowed to use the gun to say, shoot every limb in the guy's body.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,708
514
126
Still, in that length it could have been contaminated so to speak by her exposure to news reports.

If it turns out that what she said is "contaminated" and on top of that is even in the top 20 most questionable things about this investigation, then I'll be very surprised.
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
Well, a defense attorney might cast doubts on it based on the amount of time in which it took for her to come forward, during which she might have absorbed some of the reports and changed her testimony. That is all.

That would be incorrect. The tapes have been known about for weeks, the family had to sue to get them released. The woman who heard the entire confrontation and seen Zimmerman standing over the dead boy, had to go to the media because the police blew her off. But yet you question why we haven't heard about this till now, come on now.....................keep up.

That is all.
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
A defense attorney would do that.

Prosecution would do...
police lying about contents of 911 tape
police shaping testimony of witnesses
police not taking blood from Z to check for drugs alcohol because Z could not id street names in a neighborhood he patroled almost every day for a year
police giving Z leading question in the initial intervew instead of asking him just tell them what happened

I still don't see them as being fundamentally dishonest about the 911 tapes. The main thing that people get hung up about is Zimmerman seeing that Trayvon is black. But he wasn't sure of Trayvon's race when he first called.

Shaping testimony of witnesses is largely about who was heard screaming. If you listen to the 911 tapes yourself, it is inconclusive who is screaming. Might I add that most of the noise on this issue comes from Mary Cutcher who spreads a lot of hearsay but if you pay attention to what she says she saw and heard, it is in line with police accounts.

that was a mess-up not testing Z I agree. OTOH...he doesn't sound drunk in his call. Depressed and fat, but not drunk.

I personally don't know street names of the neighborhoods I live in but rather give directions by landmarks and major roads. So it is plausible.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,708
514
126
The difference between a gun and fists is sustained malice.

Punching someone for 45 seconds after he is on the ground is no longer self-defense.

a gun can stop someone in an instant. But you are not allowed to use the gun to say, shoot every limb in the guy's body.

Then in my opinion it's unfortunate that Trayvon Martin didn't land a solid blow on this part of Mr. Zimmerman's skull and stop him with one blow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterion

Sure after Mr. Zimmerman pursued the kid and got himself in trouble (i.e. a fight that apparently he ended up on the losing end of) he uses deadly force and gets to be absolved by a shitty law.

Sorry but given all the evidence that we are privy to in this case, I'd prefer it if Mr. Zimmerman was knocked out with one punch...
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
The difference between a gun and fists is sustained malice.

Punching someone for 45 seconds after he is on the ground is no longer self-defense.

a gun can stop someone in an instant. But you are not allowed to use the gun to say, shoot every limb in the guy's body.

As a premise I completely disagree with the law as written.

For the sake of my question using the law as applied there is enough evidence to stipulate T feared for his life before Z. Why didn't T have the right to use deadly force in self defense vs Z? Which means T could strike Z as many times as it takes to render him at least unconscious.

Also if Z was that close to T (1-3 feet if fighting)why couldn't he shoot him in the leg?
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,708
514
126
that was a mess-up not testing Z I agree. OTOH...he doesn't sound drunk in his call. Depressed and fat, but not drunk.

http://news.yahoo.com/fbi-justice-d...-martin-neighborhood-201122326--abc-news.html

Law enforcement expert Rod Wheeler, who listened to the tapes, told ABC News that Zimmerman, not Martin, sounded intoxicated in the police recordings of the 911 calls.
"When I listened to the 911 tape, the first thing that came to my mind is this guy sounds intoxicated. Notice how he's slurring his words. We as trained law enforcement officers, we know how to listen for that right away, and I think that's going to be an important element of this entire investigation," Wheeler said.

I'm not saying that Mr. Wheeler is infallible but do you have experience in determining if someone is drunk by listening for slurred words?
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,543
651
126
The difference between a gun and fists is sustained malice.

Punching someone for 45 seconds after he is on the ground is no longer self-defense.

a gun can stop someone in an instant. But you are not allowed to use the gun to say, shoot every limb in the guy's body.

It's self-defense if it keeps the other person from pulling a gun/knife. With only a bloody nose and some scrapes on the back of his head, Martin wasn't doing too much to Zimmerman.

No bruises, cuts on his face or need to go to the hospital. Not much of ghetto stomp as Spidey says. Martin believes his life is in danger, he's going to incapacitate his attacker and obviously he didn't.
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
That would be incorrect. The tapes have been known about for weeks, the family had to sue to get them released. The woman who heard the entire confrontation and seen Zimmerman standing over the dead boy, had to go to the media because the police blew her off. But yet you question why we haven't heard about this till now, come on now.....................keep up.

That is all.

I am talking about the girl on the phone with Trayvon, which I agree is groundbreaking.

After listening to the 911 tapes I am starting to discount Mary Cutcher's interviews.

Here is why.

She heard screaming and then saw the immediate aftermath of the shooting.

The screaming in the911 tapes is inconclusive and yet she keeps on saying that it was Martin's.

She saw Zimmerman standing over Martin shortly after the shooting. But Martin was shot in the chest and fell face-down. That means that what she saw was Zimmerman after he had shot Martin and gotten up off the ground. She took this to mean that Zimmerman had shot Martin while standing over Martin.

In the meanwhile, we have other witnesses who saw Martin (white shirt) on top of Zimmerman (red shirt)

The police are right on this one. All that Ms. Cutcher heard was indeterminate screaming and all that she saw was Zimmerman shortly after the confrontation was over.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
The self-defense claim is coming from the fact that Trayvon was on top and beating him (verified by an eye witness). At that point Zimmerman felt he was in imminent danger of great bodily harm. According to the law he could force up to and including deadly force. None of the other circumstances are relevant based on the way the law is written.

The law is written to say if a person "feels" their life is in danger. T felt his life was in danger before Z. We know that based on T's last cell phone calls.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
Not when you are the aggressor. There is plenty of eveidence now that shows clearly Zimmerman went out of his way to confront the teen. He had no legal right to do so. So the fight was a direct result of his confronting a stranger who had done nothing wrong. At the point this fight happened, Martin was well within his rights to defend himself. Who tried to retreat and who persistently sought out to confront?

Here's the law, even an aggressor can claim self-defense.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,686
126
It's self-defense if it keeps the other person from pulling a gun/knife. With only a bloody nose and some scrapes on the back of his head, Martin wasn't doing too much to Zimmerman.

No bruises, cuts on his face or need to go to the hospital. Not much of ghetto stomp as Spidey says. Martin believes his life is in danger, he's going to incapacitate his attacker and obviously he didn't.

It's really too bad Martin didn't beat Zimmerman completely to death. That would have been legitimate self defense. Of course, he would have been arrested immediately and probably been convicted of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter.

The moral of the story is that if you believe in the rule of law, stay the fuck out of Florida.