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

Page 88 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,221
18,686
146
i am not generalizing here. I am posting specifically about most of my area.

When I am on Palm Beach, I don't see this crap.

Perhaps you win the internet though?

Win the internet? LoL, you continue to crack me up.

Then move to Palm Beach? I don't see it in my immediate area anymore, because I was smart enough to move the fuck out of the area I lived in.
 

Dr. Zaus

Lifer
Oct 16, 2008
11,764
347
126
Intro:
This could easily be a case-study for an abnormal psych class that shows off paranoid personality disorder. I will write it as a mini-paper which will follow what I did, the responses gained, my interpretation of the responses, a brief discussion with propositions that may be operationalized later, and I will conclude with some useful future directions in which research on the subject of PPD and gun-ownership might move.

Data collection:

A number of questions that would lead to responses that are obviously paranoid were asked. When the subject tried to divert I asked further probing questions. Upon lashing out with total non sequiturs I terminated the interview and conducted the case study given the limited data provided. Despite this a rich interview set was obtained and some tentative propositions for future research were established.

Analysis:

Cat-With-Pulled-Tail said:
Yeah lets make it a crime to call things in.
Folks, What we can see here is how the a mind turns simple questions into a pretext for anger and aggression. While I have done nothing to this subject but ask a few questions it has responded by assuming I want to pass laws to do it harm... notice now:

Are they really so stupid to have to look up a phone number on a browser everytime they have to call it? Is that really helping matters by adding those extra minutes to report a crime.
It continues by making sweeping assumptions about the normality of it's own paranoid actions, assuming that calls that occur more than once a month are normal.

Our subject creates a world in which the perceived aggressor is a liar because the paranoia in the subject's responses is now apparent. While logically this has nothing to do with the questions it helps the psyche re-construct a world in which it justifies that paranoia.
First, I think you don't understand what road rage is.
The subject accuses the perceived aggressor of ignorance of how the subject defines it's world. This is a small bit of information leaked by the perceived aggressor turned into an illogical argument against the individual. Conflicting world-view has nothing to do with answering a few simple questions.

It's not being mad you are stuck in traffic, but as one on government assistance do you even have a job? We all know you are going to make that $120k teacher's salary 'one day' now with your PhD you will get 'one day'.
At this point the argumentation becomes non-sensical. Instead of defining the paranoid behavior, which the subject can't define lest the paranoia be obvious to itself and others, the subject tries to draw away from the clearly viable facts regarding the subject's paranoia. Despite the illogical nature of this ad-hominem attack the psyche of the subject has created a self-referential loop, one that now dismisses the perceived aggressor from the world the subject has created.

I don't think you understand the world at all.
This is a direct statement of the emotional and psychological movement that the paranoid mind will tend toward. There are many a case study where the exact same behaviors, though in a different context, occur. The next step is to reinforce the self-created world by further dismissing the questions asked by contextualizing the perceived aggressor out of the reality of the subject.

Don't you live in some smaller populated state like Mississippi or something that has nothing even remotely related to big city problems like a major city like Miami, New York, Chicago, etc has?

See here; While the subject lives in a small town outside of Orlando FL it has offered a dichotomy by appealing to 'Miami' the nearest large-town with true-problems that the subject can think of. Miami is a representation in the psyche of a place where turmoil and problems exist, clearly many bad things happen in 'Miami'... further insight into the subject's personal experiences in the 'Miami' might offer a hint as to the underlying cause of the subject's past-traumas that have lead to this paranoid mind.

Discussion:

But for now we must leave the subject to respond with whatever line of attack it has left. Most likely it will try to call this some sort of insult, when in-fact it is little more than a psychological deconstruction of the kind of mind that is likely shared by both the subject and the fellow that lead himself into a situation where he had to kill a black boy... by no fault of his own, of course.

But yet in both cases the error in judgment has occurred because of the unique and paranoid world created by both parties. This construction of a world filled with paranoia is possibly correlated, then, with high utilization of police-calling and irresponsible gun use.

Proposition1: There is a direct correlation between often calling the police and paranoid personality disorder.
Proposition2: There is a direct correlation between paranoid personality disorder and irresponsible gun use.

Further research:

We should conduct a secondary data analysis that correlated those later diagnosed with PPD to both their use of guns irresponsibly and the number of times they have called the police. Further a statistically representative set of cases should be collected using validated instruments regarding PPD and those who are screened as highly likely, using standard testing procedures, to have PPD should be investigated. While highly limited, this line of sociological research could also be bolstered by experimental studies to establish the direction or potential mutuality causality regarding gun-ownership and PPD like traits.
 
Last edited:

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
Zimmerman was right to be suspicious of Trayvon. Not to be a dick, but there was a lot of crime in that neighborhood.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/2700249/shooter-of-trayvon-martin-a-habitual.html

The answer may lie in police records, which show that 50 suspicious-person reports were called in to police in the past year at Twin Lakes. There were eight burglaries, nine thefts and one other shooting in the year prior to Trayvon’s death.

In all, police had been called to the 260-unit complex 402 times from Jan. 1, 2011 to Feb. 26, 2012.

“He once caught a thief and an arrest was made,” said Cynthia Wibker, secretary of the homeowners association. “He helped solve a lot of crimes.”

Zimmerman told neighbors about stolen laptops and unsavory characters. Ibrahim Rashada, a 25-year-old African American who works at U.S. Airways, once spotted young men cutting through the woods entering the complex on foot, and later learned items were stolen those days.


Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/...-trayvon-martin-a-habitual.html#storylink=cpy

The problem was how Zimmerman handled it. I know it's hard for most on here to admit, but really, any of you guys, especially the gun owners, could be Zimmerman.
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
12,321
9,173
136
Zimmerman was right to be suspicious of Trayvon. Not to be a dick, but there was a lot of crime in that neighborhood.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/2700249/shooter-of-trayvon-martin-a-habitual.html



The problem was how Zimmerman handled it. I know it's hard for most on here to admit, but really, any of you guys, especially the gun owners, could be Zimmerman.

I don't think anyone has said he shouldn't have made the original, non-emergency, call. The issue was what he did after that.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
Zimmerman was right to be suspicious of Trayvon . Not to be a dick, but there was a lot of crime in that neighborhood.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/2700249/shooter-of-trayvon-martin-a-habitual.html



The problem was how Zimmerman handled it. I know it's hard for most on here to admit, but really, any of you guys, especially the gun owners, could be Zimmerman.

karmy it's rare that I agree with your POV but this is a well thought out post and I have to say it's spot on.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
Zimmerman was right to be suspicious of Trayvon. Not to be a dick, but there was a lot of crime in that neighborhood.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/2700249/shooter-of-trayvon-martin-a-habitual.html



The problem was how Zimmerman handled it. I know it's hard for most on here to admit, but really, any of you guys, especially the gun owners, could be Zimmerman.

Based on what? When Z first made the call he said "I think he is black". What were the others reasons to suspect? Since T was wearing a hoodie he could not clearly id him. Are you saying Z knows nobody in that neighborhood wears hoodies?
 
Last edited:

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
mistake 1, you're quoting from wiki

mistake 2, there's no such thing as "U.S. law" in this case(and in most cases actually), criminal statues governing these type of incidents belongs to the state, which can vary wildly on subjects like self-defense.

Not defending Zimmerman's action here, but if you want to discuss the actual applicable law here, getting all emotional isn't the way to go.

Not getting emotional at all, just trying to debate some simple facts.

You don't like wiki, let's hear it from an attorney: http://web.me.com/sumanthc/Superior_Self_Defense/The_Law_of_Self-Defense_in_a_Nutshell.html

Quote:

Though the rules vary slightly from state to state, a valid claim of self-defense generally requires proof of four elements. First, one acting in self-defense must believe another person intends to use unlawful force against him. Second, that belief must be reasonable. Third, the threat must be imminent. Fourth, the amount of force used must be proportional to the threat.

Again, some undisputed facts here, 17 year old 100 lbs lighter armed with Skittles, is shot in the heart proportional to the threat presented? Either you have to be totally ignorant on the limitation on self defense, or totally biased in this case to believe Zimmerman has the right to shoot a kid who is just going home minding his own business, and is absolutely not armed and dangerous.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
He didn't know the race of the boy prior to the call. He discovered it during the call.

That is what the media is hashing out. He wasn't suspicious just because the kid was black.

Also the media is spinning he even needed to bring up race on the call. I am calling the police frequently and they always ask "are they white or black?" or "what color are they?" or "what race?"

Oh I forgot Detective Z also suspected T because he was walking in the rain and automatically assumed he was on drugs.

Sounds enciteful to me!
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
For those hanging on the self defense claims.

T running away from Z...self defense
T begging for his life...self defense

Z chasing T...no self defense
Z holding gun over T while T begs for his life...no self defense

The only thing we have left is the fight. So far there are eye witnesses to the fight but we do know an armed Z chased down T to confront. Most resonable people would conclude at that point Z loses his right to a self defense claim.
 
Last edited:

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
This thread has taken and interesting turn... ignoring the tapes...

Ok, let's extract the facts from the 911 tapes.

A) Four callers reported hearing an argument, fighting or scuffle, someone calling out for help, and a single shot fired. None are an eye witness to the incident

B) Call report the incident is in progress, calls for help can be heard (too difficult to say who was calling out for help), and a gun shot. Some in the media, family lawyers claim that two shots were fired due to a muffle knock on this tape. The sound could have been inside the callers house. Not an eye witness to the incident.

C) Caller reporting they heard arguing, fight or scuffle, calls for help, and a gun shot. Was on the phone when someone arrived with flashlights (person could not see anything due to the darkness). Reported a man standing could seen in the light of the flashlight. Stated man told person I shot him. The caller also reported a person lying on the ground, able to see due to light from flashlight. This person was not an eye witness to the incident.

Now let's discuss the lady who came forward after the fact.

How could she determine who was calling out for help if it was too dark to see (caller couldn't see anything until someone arrived with a flashlight)? Much of this persons statements are what she thought or felt rather than what she saw, which are not facts. She also reported that Z looked at here strangely and told her to call 911 which is shown not to be true by the caller that couldn't see anything until the flashlights arrived. Until this person came forward no one reported that the person shot was a boy. This person is not an eye witness.
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,543
651
126
Ok, let's extract the facts from the 911 tapes.

A) Four callers reported hearing an argument, fighting or scuffle, someone calling out for help, and a single shot fired. None are an eye witness to the incident

B) Call report the incident is in progress, calls for help can be heard (too difficult to say who was calling out for help), and a gun shot. Some in the media, family lawyers claim that two shots were fired due to a muffle knock on this tape. The sound could have been inside the callers house. Not an eye witness to the incident.

C) Caller reporting they heard arguing, fight or scuffle, calls for help, and a gun shot. Was on the phone when someone arrived with flashlights (person could not see anything due to the darkness). Reported a man standing could seen in the light of the flashlight. Stated man told person I shot him. The caller also reported a person lying on the ground, able to see due to light from flashlight. This person was not an eye witness to the incident.

Now let's discuss the lady who came forward after the fact.

How could she determine who was calling out for help if it was too dark to see (caller couldn't see anything until someone arrived with a flashlight)? Much of this persons statements are what she thought or felt rather than what she saw, which are not facts. She also reported that Z looked at here strangely and told her to call 911 which is shown not to be true by the caller that couldn't see anything until the flashlights arrived. Until this person came forward no one reported that the person shot was a boy. This person is not an eye witness.

Those aren't facts, just your interpretation.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
For those hanging on the self defense claims.

T running away from Z...self defense
T begging for his life...self defense

Z chasing T...no self defense
Z holding gun over T while T begs for his life...no self defense

The only thing we have left is the fight. So far there are eye witnesses to the fight but we do know an armed Z chased down T to confront. Most resonable people would conclude at that point Z loses his right to a self defense claim.

I'm going to post the law one more time with the areas highlighted that allow Mr Zimmerman to claim self defense even if he initiated the conflict. If he's on the bottom and can't free himself from being struck can use force up to and including deadly force. A punch to the windpipe or temple can result in death.

[SIZE=-1]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.[/SIZE]
Here's other sections of the law.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/.../0776.032.html

Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
View Entire Chapter
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2)A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3)The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/.../0776.012.html

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himselfor herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

Again unless the Police department and prosecutor's office refute Mr Zimmerman's claim to self-defense he has immunity to criminal prosecution and civil actions. This immunity also prevents arresting and detaining him.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,040
136
I'm going to post the law one more time with the areas highlighted that allow Mr Zimmerman to claim self defense even if he initiated the conflict. If he's on the bottom and can't free himself from being struck can use force up to and including deadly force. A punch to the windpipe or temple can result in death.

Here's other sections of the law.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/.../0776.032.html


http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/.../0776.012.html



Again unless the Police department and prosecutor's office refute Mr Zimmerman's claim to self-defense he has immunity to criminal prosecution and civil actions. This immunity also prevents arresting and detaining him.

Except there can be civil actions. He'll have to prove his self defense to a bench judge or jury.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
Ok, let's extract the facts from the 911 tapes.

A) Four callers reported hearing an argument, fighting or scuffle, someone calling out for help, and a single shot fired. None are an eye witness to the incident

B) Call report the incident is in progress, calls for help can be heard (too difficult to say who was calling out for help), and a gun shot. Some in the media, family lawyers claim that two shots were fired due to a muffle knock on this tape. The sound could have been inside the callers house. Not an eye witness to the incident.

C) Caller reporting they heard arguing, fight or scuffle, calls for help, and a gun shot. Was on the phone when someone arrived with flashlights (person could not see anything due to the darkness). Reported a man standing could seen in the light of the flashlight. Stated man told person I shot him. The caller also reported a person lying on the ground, able to see due to light from flashlight. This person was not an eye witness to the incident.

Now let's discuss the lady who came forward after the fact.

How could she determine who was calling out for help if it was too dark to see (caller couldn't see anything until someone arrived with a flashlight)? Much of this persons statements are what she thought or felt rather than what she saw, which are not facts. She also reported that Z looked at here strangely and told her to call 911 which is shown not to be true by the caller that couldn't see anything until the flashlights arrived. Until this person came forward no one reported that the person shot was a boy. This person is not an eye witness.

Listening to the tapes again I will admit the first bang is open to interpretation even though I still think was a shot.

For now assuming only the second bang was a shot, you can clearly hear screaming/pleading, witnesses have said it was for help. Witnesses to the screaming believe it was T. BTW - why did the police try convince one of them the screaming was Z? That sounds like witnesses tampering. The screaming was constant until the shot to which it immediately stopped. You would have us believe Z was in self defense mode with a gun pointed at T while Z is screaming for help.

Another scanario if your theory is true, if T was beating the shit out of Z so much he feared for his life his screaming would have been more muffled because of T's close proximity. If Z was trying to get in his pockets to get his gun while getting his ass kicked his screams would have abated while he was doing so.
 
Last edited:

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
Listening to the tapes again I will admit the first bang is open to interpretation even though I still think was a shot.

For now assuming only the second bang was a shot, you can clearly hear screaming/pleading, witnesses have said it was for help. Witnesses to the screaming believe it was T. BTW - why did the police try convince one of them it the screaming was Z? The screaming was constant until the shot to which it immediately stopped. You would have us believe Z was in self defense mode with a gun pointed at T while Z is screaming for help.

If your theory is true and T was beating the shit out of Z so much he feared for his life his screaming would have been more muffled because of T's close proximity. If Z was trying to get in his pockets to get his gun while getting his ass kicked his screams would have abated while he was doing so.

Several things you, the lawyers, and media doesn't have access to right now is the physical evidence (forensics including ballistic data). There were no eye witnesses that could clearly see who was on top or know who was screaming for help. We do know from the 911 call that Treyvon was face down on the ground which doesn't sound like Mr Zimmerman was standing over him and shooting him in the chest.

I don't think for one minute that if the police or prosecution had one shred of evidence that refuted Mr Zimmerman's claim of self-defense he wouldn't be in jail right now. I seriously doubt any 3rd party review is going to be able to refute this claim either as they have to apply the law as it's written.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,040
136
Several things you, the lawyers, and media doesn't have access to right now is the physical evidence (forensics including ballistic data). There were no eye witnesses that could clearly see who was on top or know who was screaming for help. We do know from the 911 call that Treyvon was face down on the ground which doesn't sound like Mr Zimmerman was standing over him and shooting him in the chest.

I don't think for one minute that if the police or prosecution had one shred of evidence that refuted Mr Zimmerman's claim of self-defense he wouldn't be in jail right now. I seriously doubt any 3rd party review is going to be able to refute this claim either as they have to apply the law as it's written.

You may be right except for the police dept. actions have been questionable to say the least.

And Zimmerman and probably the HOA still probably faces a civil suit.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
Except there can be civil actions. He'll have to prove his self defense to a bench judge or jury.

He doesn't have to prove self-defense and will still have his 5th amendment rights.

(3)The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
You may be right except for the police dept. actions have been questionable to say the least.

And Zimmerman and probably the HOA still probably faces a civil suit.

(3)The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,040
136
Did you not read Don Vito posts about whether a civil suit could occur. The family's lawyer has already talked about it.

Your post just says he'll be free from the costs IF the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution.
 
Last edited:

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
They are playing Zimmerman's 911 call on the radio today. Guess if you look around, you are a drugy, criminal, black scooping out the neighborhood to steal. Also are we to believe it is the former bouncer, 100 pound heavier, (?four?year?law?enforcement?) trained Zimmerman calling for 'HELP' IN THE LATER 911 RECORDINGS?
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
Several things you, the lawyers, and media doesn't have access to right now is the physical evidence (forensics including ballistic data). There were no eye witnesses that could clearly see who was on top or know who was screaming for help. We do know from the 911 call that Treyvon was face down on the ground which doesn't sound like Mr Zimmerman was standing over him and shooting him in the chest.

I don't think for one minute that if the police or prosecution had one shred of evidence that refuted Mr Zimmerman's claim of self-defense he wouldn't be in jail right now. I seriously doubt any 3rd party review is going to be able to refute this claim either as they have to apply the law as it's written.

I would possibly agree with you all things being equal an honest.

Here's what we have. A police dept that seems to be attempting to help Z maintain his claim of self defense.

Question you never answered, why did police coerce witness to change their story about who was screaming for help?? Also when Z was first interviewed he was not asked "tell me what happened" he was asked a specific list of questions, which can easily be leading the witness.

I think the police know its critical for T not to be the one screaming for help. At some point in time there will be a review of Z's claim of self defense. I would think it's tough to convince anyone in an altercation between two people the person screaming for their life isn't the one with the self defense posture.
 
Last edited:

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,708
514
126
Zimmerman was right to be suspicious of Trayvon. Not to be a dick, but there was a lot of crime in that neighborhood.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/2700249/shooter-of-trayvon-martin-a-habitual.html



The problem was how Zimmerman handled it. I know it's hard for most on here to admit, but really, any of you guys, especially the gun owners, could be Zimmerman.

Perhaps... I tend to think that most people here would listen to dispatch. Aside from the more 'vocal' posters.