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

Page 82 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
As a CPL holder and current military, and from info that's been made publicly available, I have to say that Mr. Zimmerman is at the very least a f-ing ret**ded mall ninja who's not qualified to be a watch for anything other than his own house, much less the neighborhood. People like him only gives the anti-gun crown more ammo to use against the rest of us who are actually responsible gun owners.

As for whether he'll be held criminally responsible, that depends on the specifics of the investigation and FL law, but Zimmerman broke quite a few commonly accepted principles:

1. Don't be the one who start the incident - See someone suspicious? good. Call 911? great. Chase after the guy and start a confrontation? hell no.

2. Did I mention don't chase after the guy?

3. Always try to de-escalate the situation, not escalate it - As a civilian, that weapon you're carrying is a last resort to prevent death and serious bodily harm to yourself and others, it's not there to make you feel all tough and go out and act stupid.


Of course, mall ninjas who thinks more highly of themselves than they actually are don't usually don't think that far ahead, and then stuff like this happens. At least he'll never get to be a LEO, there are enough competition for the few dept. that are actually hiring for any to take someone with his kind of baggage.

Agree 100%, Great post.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Unfortunately the EYE WITNESESS said the fight took place a few doors down and the shooting took place after the fight. Look at the video, dumbass. And the other video of the newscast that tracked the whole thing showed it took place far away from the road.

But its all good. If you are right then Eric Holder won't get involved. But if your wrong, lol, :).

except most of the eye witnesses admit to not looking/seeing anything and just heard things.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Based on the information I have now, I don't believe that this is a case of self-defense. I believe Trayvon was well within his rights to fight off Mr Zimmerman.

However, it appears that the way the law is written, Zimmerman will get off. I think they need to revise or remove section 2.

Have you looked at Texas' castle laws?
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
Have you looked at Texas' castle laws?

Have you?

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:
(4) “Habitation” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.
(5) “Vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.
SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and
[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
Dunno if you guys saw Young Turks on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wj9YJw8whI&

Sounds like the cops are fucking crooked and should be fired.


Exactly. After more facts are out - out only after the Martin family lawyer went to court -not only Zimmerman need to be prosecuted, the fvcking police need to be investigated and put in court for the way they handle this case.

Totally disgusting.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
problem was others have gotten away in the past.

I'd have followed after the kid if he ran. However, Zimmerman should have identified himself to the kid as soon as he saw him.

I don't have any doubt the kid pretended to go for a 'gun' in his waistband. That's the move all the little kids here do when they know you see them doing shit.

We still need more information, esp what happened between Martin running and then getting shot.

The whole situation sucks.

There is no need to play willy-nilly if you are on watch..."Excuse me son, I am part of the [neighborhood watch or simply I LIVE HERE]...what's going on tonight? You ok, it's raining and you appear confused...do you live here?"

That's all it would have taken...now if the kid bolts he is probably hiding something. If the kid just gives you a hard time and finally mentions he is going to a friends, parent, etc's house then you may still want to get the police or not.

I don't agree with people being totally passive, however; they shouldn't be going around shooting people either out of fear.

Man you people are still doing it. Continuing to impune the character of Treyvon who is now dead without ANY evidence whatsoever. "But I'm sure he was acting like a criminal"
Are you fucking serious?

As for the rewrite of the "self-defense" laws. If these were so well written (assuming the police aren't incompetant or corrupt) Z would be in jail. So many people here were citing the law and claimg "rightious kill" the current version is open to too much interpretation.

It needs a V2.0
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
Dunno if you guys saw Young Turks on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wj9YJw8whI&

Sounds like the cops are fucking crooked and should be fired.

It was posted much earlier the cops coorced one of the witnesses to change their story from "the kid cried for help" to "Z cried for help". Aren't the cops supposed to gather evidence not skew it?

Yet all the Z apologists chose to ignore this and focus on their claim T a thug who attacked Z.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
Man you people are still doing it. Continuing to impune the character of Treyvon who is now dead without ANY evidence whatsoever. "But I'm sure he was acting like a criminal"
Are you fucking serious?

As for the rewrite of the "self-defense" laws. If these were so well written (assuming the police aren't incompetant or corrupt) Z would be in jail. So many people here were citing the law and claimg "rightious kill" the current version is open to too much interpretation.

It needs a V2.0

The problem is the law is poorly written and I hate to say this but I suspect that Zimmerman will never be prosecuted or be subject to any civil action based on the way the law was written. This law should be modified to not protect someone who has initiated/provoked the conflict.

Don't be angry at the police for applying the law as it's written, they have no choice in the matter they must apply it without prejudice or emotion.

If I lived in Florida I would be writing my local, state, and federal representatives requesting that they get the law revised.

As for "many" calling this a "righteous kill" in this thread, I don't think they can counted on one hand.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
The problem is the law is poorly written and I hate to say this but I suspect that Zimmerman will never be prosecuted or be subject to any civil action based on the way the law was written. This law should be modified to not protect someone who has initiated/provoked the conflict.

Don't be angry at the police for applying the law as it's written, they have no choice in the matter they must apply it without prejudice or emotion.

If I lived in Florida I would be writing my local, state, and federal representatives requesting that they get the law revised.

As for "many" calling this a "righteous kill" in this thread, I don't think they can counted on one hand.

What I do blame the police for is lying about Z being unaware about T's race and changing the testimony of one of the witnesses. This is all evidence tampering. Looking more like a corrupt racist police dept.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
What I do blame the police for is lying about Z being unaware about T's race and changing the testimony of one of the witnesses. This is all evidence tampering. Looking more like a corrupt racist police dept.

I can't argue with you there, it doesn't look good.

Had Florida's law been the same as Texas law, Z would be in jail and I suspect we wouldn't have a thread discussing it.
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
The problem is the law is poorly written and I hate to say this but I suspect that Zimmerman will never be prosecuted or be subject to any civil action based on the way the law was written. This law should be modified to not protect someone who has initiated/provoked the conflict.

Don't be angry at the police for applying the law as it's written, they have no choice in the matter they must apply it without prejudice or emotion.

If I lived in Florida I would be writing my local, state, and federal representatives requesting that they get the law revised.

As for "many" calling this a "righteous kill" in this thread, I don't think they can counted on one hand.

I can agree with you on this one.

Even if Zimmerman is telling the truth, the fact that he initiated and escalated the incident, even if at some point he fired in self defense, should result in jail time.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
tsk tsk as a lawyer you'd know personal attacks just make you look like an idiot.

I avoid them, unless attacked. So why practice law in Minnesota when you want an M3?

My first serious g/f went there when I was 18...Dawson no less. She went to live with her dad and got a bartender job. they'd line up in snowstorms.

I really don't think even the best lawyer in Minnesota means much.

I don't understand your question. I live in Minnesota, and I already have an M3, and another car.

I am most assuredly not the best lawyer in Minnesota. I can assure you I'd much rather practice here than in Florida - that place is an armpit. To each his own in any case.

I actually agree with you that my personal attacks don't reflect well on me, but I am of the opinion that trolling doesn't reflect well on the troll either.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Those calls are tough listening.

It seems to me the "guy on top" call, at a minimum, creates a basis to believe that the story Zimmerman is selling is inaccurate. If he was on top it substantially weakens any claim that he was acting in reasonable self-defense.

It is very unfortunate that the initial investigation was apparently handled so poorly. There are clearly multiple witnesses whose testimony, knitted together, could potentially refute Zimmerman's claims.

I will also observe that these calls demonstrate the pitfall of reaching firm conclusions before you have the evidence. Several posters stated in this thread, very confidently, that there was "no way" Mr. Zimmerman could have seen Trayvon's race, when it's clear he absolutely knew it. As I said before, I don't think that makes this a racially-motivated act by Mr. Zimmerman, but it does show that it's not a good idea to decide you "know" something when you don't have any evidence.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
It seems to me the "guy on top" call, at a minimum, creates a basis to believe that the story Zimmerman is selling is inaccurate. If he was on top it substantially weakens any claim that he was acting in reasonable self-defense.

Agree, if Zimmerman was on top he would not be acting in self-defense. However, if it was the other way around and Trayvon was on top it helps Zimmerman's claim of self-defense according to the law.
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
Agree, if Zimmerman was on top he would not be acting in self-defense. However, if it was the other way around and Trayvon was on top it helps Zimmerman's claim of self-defense according to the law.

I am starting to think that Trayvon was likely on top. That is because when witnesses saw him, he was face-down on the ground. If he had been on the bottom, he would be face-up.

Also, Zimmerman doesn't strike me as intelligent enough to come up with a good lie.

The police likely were acting on their prejudices. He might have looked like a number of suspects who had recently burglarized homes in the area, so it fit in that pattern. That would explain a lack of crime scene photos and such.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Agree, if Zimmerman was on top he would not be acting in self-defense. However, if it was the other way around and Trayvon was on top it helps Zimmerman's claim of self-defense according to the law.

True, but the call says the guy on top was wearing a white t-shirt, not a gray hoody (which is what Zimmerman tells the dispatcher Trayvon Martin was wearing).

I seem to remember one of the early videos showing Zimmerman standing around talking to the police in the aftermath of the shooting, which would show what he was wearing, but I don't know where that video is. If someone knows where the video is, it would be interesting to see what it shows in terms of Zimmerman's attire.

EDIT: Found the video - the scene I was talking about is at 1:54 in the video at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/family-of-trayvon-martin-_n_1332756.html. There is a guy who may or may not be Zimmerman, standing wearing a brown t-shirt and tan pants. If that is Zimmerman, then the "guy on top" call is inconclusive regarding who was on top (unless Martin took his hoody off, for whatever reason, and was wearing a white t-shirt, but that seems unlikely under the circumstances). It does seem likelier to me that an onlooker would get the color of a t-shirt wrong (suggesting Zimmerman was on top) rather than mistaking a hoody for a t-shirt, but it's unclear either way.
 
Last edited:

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
I am starting to think that Trayvon was likely on top. That is because when witnesses saw him, he was face-down on the ground. If he had been on the bottom, he would be face-up.

Also, Zimmerman doesn't strike me as intelligent enough to come up with a good lie.

The police likely were acting on their prejudices. He might have looked like a number of suspects who had recently burglarized homes in the area, so it fit in that pattern. That would explain a lack of crime scene photos and such.

I doubt that's what happened. The woman said when she looked outside Zimmerman was standing straddle over the guy right after she heard the screaming and the gun shot. More than likely he shot him while on top and the kid rolled over to crawl away. Which would explain why he was on his stomach with both arms stretched out straight above his head. If he was on top over Zimmerman more than likely he would have been on his back because Zimmerman would have pushed him over onto his back to get him off of him.
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
I doubt that's what happened. The woman said when she looked outside Zimmerman was standing straddle over the guy right after she heard the screaming and the gun shot. More than likely he shot him while on top and the kid rolled over to crawl away. Which would explain why he was on his stomach with both arms stretched out straight above his head. If he was on top over Zimmerman more than likely he would have been on his back because Zimmerman would have pushed him over onto his back to get him off of him.

didn't think of that.

The guy on top wore a white tshirt. Now, do you see Trayvon taking off his hoodie before the conflict? No.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
As a CPL holder and current military, and from info that's been made publicly available, I have to say that Mr. Zimmerman is at the very least a f-ing ret**ded mall ninja who's not qualified to be a watch for anything other than his own house, much less the neighborhood. People like him only gives the anti-gun crown more ammo to use against the rest of us who are actually responsible gun owners.

As for whether he'll be held criminally responsible, that depends on the specifics of the investigation and FL law, but Zimmerman broke quite a few commonly accepted principles:

1. Don't be the one who start the incident - See someone suspicious? good. Call 911? great. Chase after the guy and start a confrontation? hell no.

2. Did I mention don't chase after the guy?

3. Always try to de-escalate the situation, not escalate it - As a civilian, that weapon you're carrying is a last resort to prevent death and serious bodily harm to yourself and others, it's not there to make you feel all tough and go out and act stupid.


Of course, mall ninjas who thinks more highly of themselves than they actually are don't usually don't think that far ahead, and then stuff like this happens. At least he'll never get to be a LEO, there are enough competition for the few dept. that are actually hiring for any to take someone with his kind of baggage.


100% agree with this.

Also the law is fucked up and badly written. while i beleive 100% that Z should be charged with murder odds are he is going to get off.

he starts the fight gets his ass kicked. the kid runs. Z gets him again on the ground standing over him and shoots him. (all of this by witness's)

then you add in a bad investigation and perhaps corrupt police and its a fucked up situation

Thank god for the media (didn't think i would ever say that) for the 911 calls and witness's coming on saying to everyone what happened.

Everyone (except fucking racist idiotic asswipes) knows he murdered the kid. Z could have ended it yet chose to chase him.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
True, but the call says the guy on top was wearing a white t-shirt, not a gray hoody (which is what Zimmerman tells the dispatcher Trayvon Martin was wearing).

I seem to remember one of the early videos showing Zimmerman standing around talking to the police in the aftermath of the shooting, which would show what he was wearing, but I don't know where that video is. If someone knows where the video is, it would be interesting to see what it shows in terms of Zimmerman's attire.

This was also after the shot, so he could been when Z was getting up. Based on the calls it was very dark as most didn't realize what had happened until flashlights were at the scene. There's far to many think that are still no available. Forensics and ballistic reports will tell much, bullet entry (possible exit) wounds and trajectory.