What I don't get about the Trayvon Martin case

[DAPUNISHER]

I agree that following someone is not something for which one should be physically assaulted.

But there are two problems here, I think.

First, in your analogy of walking around with money hanging out of your pockets, you may be presenting a tempting target, but you are taking no specific action against another individual. That's not the case here. There's a fundamental difference between "just walking down the street" and actively following someone. As soon as you start following a person, you are increasing the chances of an incident. That doesn't apply to just walking on your own not considering other people.

Second, we don't really know if Zimmerman was "just" following Martin, or if he did something more. How do we assess that? We have to use all of the available evidence to judge whether his description of events makes sense, given that Martin is dead.

I don't think anyone really knows what happened except for Zimmerman. But when I look at the full context of this -- especially the phone call Zimmerman made to the police -- I think it stretches the bounds of believability to portray Zimmerman as someone who was just innocently following Martin when the latter decided to attack him.

Zimmerman thought Martin was a problem, and he apparently had a track record of looking for trouble. On the 9/11 call, he said "these assholes, they always get away" -- that's not the sign of someone who is minding his own business. It doesn't prove him guilty of anything, but IMO it suggests a confrontational attitude, and considerably raises the probability that Zimmerman himself instigated this altercation.



That's it in a nutshell. As long as there are no witnesses and the other guy ends up dead, it's your story versus.. nothing.. and you get off.

This is the crux of it, speaking for myself. Z was the one that contacted Wendy Dorival about forming a neighborhood watch. At the meeting the other residents appointed him coordinator. Now, according to Wendy -

She set up a visit for the next month at the Retreat at Twin Lakes, a gated community that had been dealing with a string of burglaries. When 25 residents showed up, a decent turnout, she had the residents introduce themselves; after all, people join the groups to look out for each other. She then gave a PowerPoint presentation and distributed a handbook. As she always does, she emphasized what a neighborhood watch is — and what it is not.

In every presentation, “I go through what the rules and responsibilities are,” she said Thursday. The volunteers’ role, she said, is “being the eyes and ears” for the police, “not the vigilante.” Members of a neighborhood watch “are not supposed to confront anyone,” she said. “We get paid to get into harm’s way. You don’t do that. You just call them from the safety of your home or your vehicle.” Using a gun in the neighborhood watch role would be out of the question, she said in an interview.

Mr. Zimmerman was there, she recalled, and the local group appointed him their coordinator.

Now, given all that, and the 911 call, that is enough to establish motive for vigilantism. Which is why I disagree with those saying he should never have been arrested. A 2nd degree murder charge, will require much more evidence of course.

The moment he left the truck, and followed T, he exceeded the authority of his position. So, is he to be judged based upon that, or does he get to drop the mantle of watch captain/coordinator? Because if we consider him in that role, he ignored not just the 911 operator, but Wendy Dorival as well, by leaving the vehicle and following T. Which again, throws up the allegation of vigilantism.

Further adding to the allegation, is that he had already been assured LE was in route to his location. Yet, he was not satisfied with this answer, And furthermore, actively pursued, what he himself inferred was, a potentially armed suspect. All while forgetting he himself was also armed.

Where my bias enters, is that I do not think that is logically consistent with being non confrontational. I speculate that based upon his comments during the 911 call, he left the vehicle filled with frustration and righteous anger.

Whatever happened after that is a matter of what can be proven in a court of law. But, I still think, unlike many I have read voice other opinions, that the arrest itself was well warranted.

And finally, to answer your original question

Can someone really be an "innocent victim" when they create the situation that leads to the shooting?

I think the answer is NO they cannot be an innocent victim. But they can certainly still be a victim. And I mean that in the sense of

4. A person who suffers injury, loss, or death as a result of a voluntary undertaking: You are a victim of your own scheming

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

And others are frustrated with your inability to define why you believe Zimmerman's account (and hand-waving it away with generic statements about 'all the evidence' rather that pointing to specific things that corroborate his story, particularly around the issues that other posters have raised, is not an answer), and yet they have continued this discussion without violating the spirit of the new forum. Specifically, they have not put words in other's mouths, as you have by incorrectly stating that my position is that Zimmerman is a racist and should be jailed/executed without a trial.

I shouldn't have quoted you specifically as my post was intended as a general expression of frustration...not directed at you specifically. My apologies.

 

[lotus503]

I shouldn't have quoted you specifically as my post was intended as a general expression of frustration...not directed at you specifically. My apologies.

I get it, I really do. I find this particular topic frustrating on a number of levels. Way to Man up and be adult about it :thumbsup:.

 

[GreenMeters]

I shouldn't have quoted you specifically as my post was intended as a general expression of frustration...not directed at you specifically. My apologies.

Thank you. Apology accepted.

 

[randomrogue]

Do you have evidence of such or is this pure speculation.

If evidence ; please post it.

EK
Admin
Discussion Club Moderator

Speculation of course. I don't work for the FBI and I can't imagine the FBI releasing a statement saying they're trying to avoid race riots.

The FBI did an investigation and released a statement to the public that said Zimmerman was not motivated by racism. It was a hate crime investigation after the public starting discussing whether he said my excellent compatriot, Goon, Cold, or Punk. Whether that was their starting point or not I have no idea but I remember the report coming out after that.

Having lived in LA at the time of the Rodney King riots this makes sense to want to avoid something similar and not let the public start harping about a racial killing, racism, or anything even remotely sounding like racism.

However during the trial you'll see both sides break down the 911 tape, bring forth experts, and try to paint the other side in a bad light.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I agree, your quoted post doesn't lend to discussion but rather stifles it.

I mean if your frustration is leading to posts that add no discussion value or dropping F Bombs, maybe you should take a breather.

I agree...a breather is a good idea. Again, I do appreciate your earlier post as you did a decent job of supporting your position in my opinion.

 

[lotus503]

Speculation of course. I don't work for the FBI and I can't imagine the FBI releasing a statement saying they're trying to avoid race riots.

The FBI did an investigation and released a statement to the public that said Zimmerman was not motivated by racism. It was a hate crime investigation after the public starting discussing whether he said my excellent compatriot, Goon, Cold, or Punk. Whether that was their starting point or not I have no idea but I remember the report coming out after that.

Having lived in LA at the time of the Rodney King riots this makes sense to want to avoid something similar and not let the public start harping about a racial killing, racism, or anything even remotely sounding like racism.

However during the trial you'll see both sides break down the 911 tape, bring forth experts, and try to paint the other side in a bad light.

I think given all of the evidence it would be hard to say this was any sort of hate crime. I think Zimmerman demonstrated bad judgement but I don't think it was because Martin was black, all things being equal outside of Martin's race I think it goes down exactly the same. If Martin was say Chinese or Mexican I think the same exact thing occurs.

I think just the presence of a stranger in a Hoody was enough to get Zimmerman going.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

I think given all of the evidence it would be hard to say this was any sort of hate crime. I think Zimmerman demonstrated bad judgement but I don't think it was because Martin was black, all things being equal outside of Martin's race I think it goes down exactly the same. If Martin was say Chinese or Mexican I think the same exact thing occurs.

I think just the presence of a stranger in a Hoody was enough to get Zimmerman going.

I did not even so much as sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. That said, I cannot see how they can prove that. Exerpt from the legal dictionary

A Hate Crime is one crime that requires proof of a certain motive. Generally, a hate crime is motivated by the defendant's belief regarding a protected status of the victim, such as the victim's religion, sex, disability, customs, or national origin. In states that prosecute hate crimes, the prosecution must prove that the defendant was motivated by animosity toward a protected status of the victim. Hate-crime laws are exceptions to the general rule that proof of motive is not required in a criminal prosecution.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

FWIW, I appreciate the way you guys "stepped back from the brink" on your own when things got heated. That's what this place is all about, so thanks. :thumbsup:

In terms of the race issue -- I don't think there's any evidence that this was specifically racially motivated. But I do think that racial prejudice could have formed part of the assessment that lead Zimmerman to believe that Martin was "suspicious".

Then there's the matter of phrases like "these assholes". Sure, it could mean criminals in general, but it also could mean something else.

About the race riot thing -- I believe it is entirely reasonable to think that the government is concerned about that happening if Zimmerman walks. I mean, it's happened before.

 

[lotus503]

FWIW, I appreciate the way you guys "stepped back from the brink" on your own when things got heated. That's what this place is all about, so thanks. :thumbsup:

In terms of the race issue -- I don't think there's any evidence that this was specifically racially motivated. But I do think that racial prejudice could have formed part of the assessment that lead Zimmerman to believe that Martin was "suspicious".

Then there's the matter of phrases like "these assholes". Sure, it could mean criminals in general, but it also could mean something else.

About the race riot thing -- I believe it is entirely reasonable to think that the government is concerned about that happening if Zimmerman walks. I mean, it's happened before.

What I will give Zimmerman in regards to this is that locally in Sanford in his area is a gang that is known as "Goons"

These are mostly minority teenagers that are known to wear hoodies in winter. So it very well could have been Zimmerman identifying martin as one of these gang members.

Take the whole Coons debate from the edited audio, Goons actually makes more sense.

 

[lotus503]

I did not even so much as sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. That said, I cannot see how they can prove that. Exerpt from the legal dictionary

I don't see how they can prove it was a hate crime either, it appears most of the people the FBI interviewed said Zimemrman in fact never showed any racism etc.

 

[EagleKeeper]

<snip>

About the race riot thing -- I believe it is entirely reasonable to think that the government is concerned about that happening if Zimmerman walks. I mean, it's happened before.

I fully believe that this is one of the reasons for political pressure being brought and AC then charging.

 

[randomrogue]

What I will give Zimmerman in regards to this is that locally in Sanford in his area is a gang that is known as "Goons"

These are mostly minority teenagers that are known to wear hoodies in winter. So it very well could have been Zimmerman identifying martin as one of these gang members.

Take the whole Coons debate from the edited audio, Goons actually makes more sense.

Zimmerman's lawyer said he said "punks".

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Zimmerman states Martin was trying to cover his mouth, yet claims it was him screaming which occurred uninterrupted.

If you listen to John's wife/girlfriend recorded statement to FDLE she said that the calls for help started out as he he he and then changed to screams for help. This could be due to TM trying to cover GZ's mouth as he claims.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Can someone really be an "innocent victim" when they create the situation that leads to the shooting?

Yes, they can be an innocent victim as long as they do not start a physical altercation with the other person. It's not against the law to ask another person a question however, it is against the law to assault or batter a person who asks a question.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Yes, they can be an innocent victim as long as they do not start a physical altercation with the other person. It's not against the law to ask another person a question however, it is against the law to assault or batter a person who asks a question.

As already covered -- that's true, but the real issue is whether Zimmerman was really "just asking a question" or engaging in other innocent-sounding behavior, or if he initiated a physical confrontation that he ended with his gun.

His statements and behavior call his intentions into question.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

As already covered -- that's true, but the real issue is whether Zimmerman was really "just asking a question" or engaging in other innocent-sounding behavior, or if he initiated a physical confrontation that he ended with his gun.

His statements and behavior call his intentions into question.

Though GZ said "fucking assholes" and possibly "fucking punks" I don't think he ever thought he would see TM again after he took off running. During the NEN call he never stated that he gained sight of TM again.

There's no proof that he initiated the physical confrontation. In fact TM has no wounds or for that matter shows that he was even touched by GZ.

Based on what DeeDee has stated TM first asked GZ a question and GZ asked a question in return.

GZ statement to police was that TM asked him a question first and he replied.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

He may well be innocent of the murder. Or guilty without enough evidence to convict.

But regardless of that, his actions led directly to an unnecessary death. Actions that were taken against police advice (if not forcefully enough stated for my liking) and that exceeded the bounds of his mandate as a neighborhood watch volunteer.

If he's not guilty of murder, he's guilty of something. IMO, this incident was entirely avoidable if he had followed police instructions, as he should have. I hope there is something that he can be held accountable for.

 

[werepossum]

To me, the act of shooting Martin is legal well before "stand your ground", this law doesn't even need to be considered. How can stand your ground apply to a situation where you're on your back, pinned to the ground, with an assailant on top of you? Zimmerman wasn't standing, he was not allowed to retreat.

Ballistics and eyewitness account can prove, to some degree, how the shot was fired. Distance from clothing, burn marks. That would corroborate being pinned and unable to flee.

I strongly oppose the notion that a person must not confront another. If we see a suspect, is it now our legal and moral duty to turn around and walk the other way - heaven forbid they attack you? If I'm walking down the street and there's a jogger approaching, am I to flee?

When I say confront... I pretty much mean walk up to and say hi, to talk to them. A verbal "confrontation" along with being able to meet them, so you may identify them later.

We could argue that if you feel threatened enough to call the police - that you are no longer allowed to approach the "suspect", but I'm fairly certain that's not the law. If you want it to be the law then we could discuss that, but such obligations should not apply here in this case or reflect legally on Zimmerman.

That's pretty much my view as well. Zimmerman was doing what everyone should do - look out for his neighbors.

It's still a valid question though because of the way he did this. If one has the best of intentions but through the clumsiness of one's actions in carrying out those intentions causes (or partially causes) a fatal physical confrontation that otherwise would not have occurred, does some blame accrue legally? There is a big difference in tone between "Hello, I'm George from the Neighborhood Watch and I don't think I've seen you around here" and "What are you doing here?"

 

[OCNewbie]

Zimmerman states Martin was trying to cover his mouth, yet claims it was him screaming which occurred uninterrupted.

To the part underlined by me, are you stating this, or are you implying GZ stated that?

To my knowledge, the 911 call that has the clearest audio of the background screams is on the audio for Witness 11's call to 911.

After the loud scream at 0:27, there appears to be another, much softer scream (potentially muffled) at ~0:30 (the female caller is talking so it's hard to discern), or no scream at all. After that point, there isn't another clear scream 'til 0:34. I'm not sure what qualifies as an "interruption", but I'd say there are a number of interruptions throughout the entire 40 seconds of call time before the shot is heard. The shot comes at 0:40.

Here is the sample I'm using as reference: Witness 11 - 911 Call (WAV format)

 

[lotus503]

To the part underlined by me, are you stating this, or are you implying GZ stated that?

To my knowledge, the 911 call that has the clearest audio of the background screams is on the audio for Witness 11's call to 911.

After the loud scream at 0:27, there appears to be another, much softer scream (potentially muffled) at ~0:30 (the female caller is talking so it's hard to discern), or no scream at all. After that point, there isn't another clear scream 'til 0:34. I'm not sure what qualifies as an "interruption", but I'd say there are a number of interruptions throughout the entire 40 seconds of call time before the shot is heard. The shot comes at 0:40.

Here is the sample I'm using as reference: Witness 11 - 911 Call (WAV format)

I was stating that based on the 911 calls. I didn't hear the screaming stop indicating he mouth was covered. Doesnt mean it didnt happen but I would have expected a more concise indication of it.

 

[OCNewbie]

I was stating that based on the 911 calls.

You mean the audio from them, right? (just making sure)

I didn't hear the screaming stop indicating he mouth was covered.

Do you mean like a mid-scream interruption? I don't recall the specifics to be honest, but did GZ describe a mid-scream covering of his mouth? I thought he just said the guy covered his mouth and told him to "shut the fuck up" or something to that effect. The screams are coming in at fairly regular intervals at the beginning of the call, and I do believe I notice a break in their consistency around the 0:22-0:26 mark. Perhaps that could be a time he attempted to cover his mouth. There is definitely a 7-second lull from 0:27 to 0:34 though, though I do believe I "might" hear a very faint yell at ~0:29-0:30, though it's too faint to be sure what it is.

Doesnt mean it didnt happen but I would have expected a more concise indication of it.

What do you base this expectation on? Was it based on GZ's description of how TM covered his mouth, like did GZ say it happened in the middle of a scream, or is it more of an arbitrary expectation?

 

[OCNewbie]

There is a big difference in tone between "Hello, I'm George from the Neighborhood Watch and I don't think I've seen you around here" and "What are you doing here?"

We don't know if "What are you doing around here?" was ever said. That is only Witness 8, DeeDee's claim.

 

[OCNewbie]

But regardless of that, his actions led directly to an unnecessary death.

I'd argue his actions led indirectly to that. I'd add that his actions may have even led indirectly to a confrontation.

Actions that were taken against police advice (if not forcefully enough stated for my liking) and that exceeded the bounds of his mandate as a neighborhood watch volunteer.

First and foremost, the dispatcher was not "police", he was just a dispatcher, a civilian, and the advice was given over the phone. I'm pretty sure this advice was not given with some lengthy weighing of the situation (the dispatcher knew very little at that time), it was likely just standard protocol for dispatchers in such situations to advise not to follow.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the lead investigator (I believe that's what he was presented as) for the prosecution, at the first bond hearing, said that they had no evidence to show that GZ continued to follow the suspect after dispatch said the "We don't need you to do that" phrase.

IMO, this incident was entirely avoidable if he had followed police instructions, as he should have.

Again, they weren't "police" instructions, or not from a police officer, anyway. And one more time, there's no proof he didn't follow police instructions, just that there WAS a confrontation. GZ claims TM confronted him, and there's no proof (that I'm aware of) that contradicts that claim.

 

[OCNewbie]

How many people are going to "instigate" a fight by not touching someone and then letting that person beat on them for a while then shoot them? That's taking a mighty big chance that the person beating on you won't be able to take the gun from you or hurt you badly enough that you would be unable to shoot them, only a complete idiot would think that was a good idea.

Not to mention calling the police beforehand, and banking on getting all the dirty work out of the way before the police arrive. Oh, and not to mention they decide to do it within eyesight/earshot of 10 or more homes at 7PM on a Sunday evening, where there could be plenty of potential witnesses to dispute everything you say, or even record it on video.