Author Topic: Zimmerman / Martin = What a mess that should not have happened (Read 3418 times)

streak · « **Reply #60 on:** April 12, 2012, 05:32:58 PM »

Quote from: Graybeard on April 11, 2012, 01:00:20 PM

I don't understand why some of you are assuming Zimmerman made contact with him. He was asked by 911 if he was following and yes. He was told to stop and he said OK. Why assume he didn't do as he said?

Evidence released so far tends to make me believe he stopped following and then was attacked from the rear.

That is essentially what I also understand to have happened!!

[/quote]

ironglow · « **Reply #61 on:** April 13, 2012, 01:16:28 AM »

Quote from: streak on April 12, 2012, 05:32:58 PM

Quote from: Graybeard on April 11, 2012, 01:00:20 PM
I don't understand why some of you are assuming Zimmerman made contact with him. He was asked by 911 if he was following and yes. He was told to stop and he said OK. Why assume he didn't do as he said?

Evidence released so far tends to make me believe he stopped following and then was attacked from the rear.

That is essentially what I also understand to have happened!!

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

I don't debate the above conclusion, it seems from what we have to be the more obvious conclusion. It sure sounds like when the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that" and he said "OK", that he was likely leaving. If not, I would expect him to say..."just another few houses" or "until we reach the next cross street"..but it seems more likely he simply turned around and started back to his vehicle.
Again, I'm speaking on what seems "more likely"..with what info we have..

Those head wounds would have to be explained. Was it an unexpected attack from the rear, or was it from a frontal confrontation ? Whatever the case, whoever made first physical contact whether by fist, club or gun ..should be held responsible. No injury would have been done, had there been no physical contact !

As in the old saying " sticks & stones can break my bones......

gstewart44 · « **Reply #62 on:** April 13, 2012, 03:39:44 AM »

TM - the local reports here and the layout of the crime scene indicate the struggle took place about 70 yds from the girlfriends house, in a common area between two buildings with a sidewalk running between. I have not heard any reports of it being as close as 15 paces. That being said there were at least seven 911 calls coming from the condos that abutted the crime scene. Reports have indicated at least two witnesses actually saw the struggle, the others heard the conflict and saw the aftermath.

Another piece I find interesting is that Trevon's mother two days ago said she thought the whole thing ( the encounter ) was a big accident that just happened. Then after media jumping all over her statement, this morning she comes on tv stating that Z "profiled" her son, had "intent" on what he was going to do, and carried out that "intent" and now her son is no longer here.

What I smell from these "lawyered up" statements from her and the media is they are trying to set up the environment to allow Holder and his goons to bring Fed Civil Rights and Hate Crime charges against Z.

And as several have said before, now that Z is in custody, all eyes and ears are turning towards repealing the 'Stand Your Ground" law. the media paints the law as a tool for reckless murder and bloodbaths. fact is a couple of hundred cases have used this defense in Florida since its inception. Over half the cases were dismissed and did not go to trial.

If SYG had not been in place I contend what we would see is more victims that otherwise could not defend themselves.

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #63 on:** April 13, 2012, 04:21:49 AM »

Quote from: gstewart44 on April 13, 2012, 03:39:44 AM

Another piece I find interesting is that Trevon's mother two days ago said she thought the whole thing ( the encounter ) was a big accident that just happened. Then after media jumping all over her statement, this morning she comes on tv stating that Z "profiled" her son, had "intent" on what he was going to do, and carried out that "intent" and now her son is no longer here.

Yeah, in her amended statement, she specifically said that Z killed her son in cold blood. I'm pretty sure one of her 'advisors' took her aside after her 'it was an accident' comment - which I believe was a sincere comment on her part - and counseled her that she was undermining the victim/supplication/gravy train narrative, and to KEEP TO THE SCRIPT.

nw_hunter · « **Reply #64 on:** April 13, 2012, 05:32:49 AM »

Quote from: ironglow on April 12, 2012, 02:42:05 PM

Quote from: 45-70.gov on April 12, 2012, 01:34:14 PM
does the term...''innocent until proven guilty'' sound familiar to any one?
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Doesn't count here...according to the media or the usual publicity poltroons who climb aboard any situation where they can make a "racial" thing out of it !

Or Hero's out of victims! Remember Jessica Lynch? Or the hero that stopped Hasan's rampage at Ft Hood (Kimberly Munley) Actually she was a good cop doing her job, and a victim of the shooter. Eye witnesses later stated it was Sgt.Mark Todd, who put the shooter down and out of action. No doubt saving his fellow officers life. They let that story sort of fade away

Pat Tillman is another get it wrong story.A cover up really and one hell of a way to treat a family that deserved the truth about the death of their loved one. The press very seldom gets it right the first time, or the forth for that matter. "For what ever reason"Who know's what to believe?

SwampThing762 · « **Reply #65 on:** April 13, 2012, 07:25:51 AM »

I will say this on this thread, as I did on the other thread -- grand juries are only required for Murder 1 charges in Florida.

Also, this is a very unfortunate situation. I also work security in a gated community in Jacksonville, and I deal with non-residents entering the property all the time. You can legally do no more than observe and report. GZ should not have been carrying a weapon that night. All reports that I have seen and read indicate one thing [many indirectly] -- TM did not have a weapon. The fact that GZ shot an unarmed man makes it manslaughter, regardless of the attack vector.

ST762

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #66 on:** April 13, 2012, 07:29:23 AM »

Quote from: SwampThing762 on April 13, 2012, 07:25:51 AM

GZ should not have been carrying a weapon that night. All reports that I have seen and read indicate one thing [many indirectly] -- TM did not have a weapon. The fact that GZ shot an unarmed man makes it manslaughter, regardless of the attack vector.

my understanding is that Zimmerman wasn't specifically neighborhood watching, but was on the way to the store when he observed Martin, whilst carrying his weapon.

we'll see how it shakes out

SwampThing762 · « **Reply #67 on:** April 13, 2012, 07:39:15 AM »

yt3,

It is well-established from multiple reports that GZ was operating in capacity of neighborhood watch program at the time of the incident. TM was returning from the convenience store when the incident happened.

Them be some of the facts of the case.

ST762

stimpylu32 · « **Reply #68 on:** April 13, 2012, 08:00:32 AM »

Quote from: yellowtail3 on April 11, 2012, 12:43:21 PM

The OP is confused - again - and stuck on race. This is about undermining 2nd Amendment rights and the concept of armed self defense, pure and simple - the racial angle is just gravy that enables it.

That would be ME , and just how am I confused ? My original post was purely stating the FACT that Zimmerman put himself in a place that he should not have and it ended in a death .

It had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment !

stimpy

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #69 on:** April 13, 2012, 11:54:18 AM »

Quote from: stimpylu32 on April 13, 2012, 08:00:32 AM

Quote from: yellowtail3 on April 11, 2012, 12:43:21 PM
The OP is confused - again - and stuck on race. This is about undermining 2nd Amendment rights and the concept of armed self defense, pure and simple - the racial angle is just gravy that enables it.

That would be ME , and just how am I confused ? My original post was purely stating the FACT that Zimmerman put himself in a place that he should not have and it ended in a death .

It had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment !
stimpy

You know, Stimpy, you're right - I was responding to another thread, or something, where the post emphasized the racial angle as being why this incident was such a big deal in national news. I think that's secondary, and much of the press is harping on it because they're really, really hoping to undermine the concept of armed self-defense.

doesn't have a thing to do with top post in this thread. Hmmm... maybe I was typing back and forth in two threads, I dunno...

Spirithawk · « **Reply #70 on:** April 13, 2012, 02:53:26 PM »

Want facts? Here's one for you. Had the shooting occured the other way around, Travon shooting Zimmerman, I doubt any of us would have ever heard of it at all, let alone the media circus being force fed us. I'm betting few of you would disagree with that because you and I both know it's true. That being said, just how is this trial going to be fair? Maybe if they barred everyone not directly involved there might be a chance but as it is they'll do everything but sell popcorn and cotton candy! They'd do that too if they thought they could get away with it!

magooch · « **Reply #71 on:** April 14, 2012, 03:57:37 AM »

I don't see this as a complicated case at all; the only facts that should matter is who assaulted who first. The means, or instrument by which the assaultee defended himself shouldn't make any difference. The severity of the assault does come into question and unless some other evidence comes up, if someone is bashing your head against a concrete sidewalk, in my book a gun works just fine.

williamlayton · « **Reply #72 on:** April 14, 2012, 04:54:50 AM »

Magooch
It IS about who did what first, I agree. It appears tha Z took it upon hisownself to follow and stalk. It turns out that he pushed the envelope against a person who would not be pushed.
The results were that he had to kill the person he was stalking and following.
Now you boys are always going on about big brother and folks who want to control you--THEN you turn around and say that Z was a good guy for doing what he did.
Sincerely--I wish a number of you would think before you post. What do you want and expect when you want and expect the same thing that TM apparently wanted.
Blessings

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #73 on:** April 14, 2012, 04:58:57 AM »

John Lott has a question - where is the probable cause?

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/295984/where-s-probable-cause-john-r-lott-jr

gstewart44 · « **Reply #74 on:** April 14, 2012, 05:02:30 AM »

Quote from: TM7 on April 14, 2012, 03:27:41 AM

Getwstewart....thanx for update on some facts...reckon we're have to see what pans out in court...the exact place of the shooting should not be arguable but a firm location...Another point you may know about>.....Z was a night watchman enthusiast, but was he officially sanctioned by the homeowner's association to be such, and did they have a written policy on NW procedures and weapons.....point being was Z violating homeowner association policies, because if he was--this is indication of being the aggressor, or construed to be aggressor...
.
.
..TM7
.

Our local stations have made it a big point of discussion that the HOA did not have a "sanctioned" Neighborhood Watch program, meaning they had the official training and paperwork filed with the local or county LEO officials. That being said, there were no bylaws/policies addressing such from the HOA.

The Neighborhood Watch was informally and loosely organized. Z's concern about the increasing crime in the community was known. He did observe, and document all suspicious activity, and his observations/911 calls were instrumental in stopping at least one breakin and solved another burglary. Did he make 40+ calls to 911? Yes. Is that excessive? Evidently not....his actions did help prevent and solve some crimes. The local PD did not ever warn him about "abusing" the 911 line. These facts you will not find in the MainStream hippocrytical Media. He was like the early warning system for the community. The HOA newsletter had an article on what to do if they saw suspicious activity......they said call 911 (first) and then call Z (he was known as having good observation skills).
The CCW permit that Z has is no different than the hundreds of thousands of other Floridians that are permitted and the fact that he was carrying on that day was probably a function of him going to the store(out in public). Since the HOA had no official Neighborhood Watch program, (which if it did the rules state you do not confront or attempt to engage any activity....you only observe and report) I doubt it can be held liable for Z's actions.....but then again Florida juries are very quick to award individuals large sums of money if it comes from an insurance company or business entity.

The climate is quite a bit calmer at this point, but Z's future I feel is quite gloomy. If he walks on the charges due to SYG law he will be immune to any criminal and civil prosecution from the State. But the Feds are poised then to come after him on Civil Rights violations....if you have listened to the words coming from Trayvon's family/legal council/prosecution team over the past two days you here official use of the terms "profiled" and "intent". Holder will bring the full weight of the Feds against Z......IMHO He will never have a safe life again.

magooch · « **Reply #75 on:** April 14, 2012, 05:20:25 AM »

Quote from: williamlayton on April 14, 2012, 04:54:50 AM

Magooch
It IS about who did what first, I agree. It appears tha Z took it upon hisownself to follow and stalk. It turns out that he pushed the envelope against a person who would not be pushed.
The results were that he had to kill the person he was stalking and following.
Now you boys are always going on about big brother and folks who want to control you--THEN you turn around and say that Z was a good guy for doing what he did.
Sincerely--I wish a number of you would think before you post. What do you want and expect when you want and expect the same thing that TM apparently wanted.
Blessings

William, I do not share your very liberal interpretation of what stalking is and in any case whether what Zimmerman was doing could be deemed as stalking, it in no way gives the stalkee the right to physically assault the stalker.

williamlayton · « **Reply #76 on:** April 14, 2012, 05:55:07 AM »

MG
I think my stance is VERY conservative and yours to be liberal to the hilt.
It is the liberal who would say that Z had a right to stalk and follow.
A CONSEVATIVE would have told Z to get off my tail.
Blessings

Empty Quiver · « **Reply #77 on:** April 14, 2012, 06:09:55 AM »

"William, I do not share your very liberal interpretation of what stalking is and in any case whether what Zimmerman was doing could be deemed as stalking, it in no way gives the stalkee the right to physically assault the stalker."

So if I'm being "stalked" I should run as fast as I can? I have no right to figure out what is up? Are you kidding me? At the point the "stalk" turns into an assault can I then defend myself ?

Lets say a cougar ( or even a mountain lion

) is stalking you, what should you do? What would you do, run like a prey animal? Do you turn and do your best to defend yourself? I am betting young Mr. Martin decided it was time to defend himself. Unfortunately he didn't get all the relevant facts before he acted. The fight was going his way for a while, so much so the predator ( Mr. Zimmerman), determined he was now the prey. At that point he "defended" himself in the most efficient manner he had at hand.

It's a damn shame all around no matter the causes. This case is going to be chuck full of losing parties there will be no winners.

mrcooper · « **Reply #78 on:** April 14, 2012, 10:52:54 AM »

woodchuck ntr
I don't give my money to muslims or democraps, I will give my money to who ever I wish and I wish to give some to that man that has bounty on his head by the BLACK PANTHERS and that has a very little chance of a fair trial.

m-g Willy · « **Reply #79 on:** April 14, 2012, 12:06:19 PM »

Quote from: TM7 on April 14, 2012, 04:57:31 AM

Quote from: magooch on April 14, 2012, 03:57:37 AM
. Excvept that 'stand your ground' also applies to the Kid......TM7

What do you think "stand your ground " means?
It doesn't mean you can beat someone into the ground when they have not engaged you with phyiscal or the threat of harm yet.
Asking someone a question isn't an excuse to attack them.
If Martin didn't think it was Zimmermans biz what he was doing he could have told him to eat s!@# or walked away.
THEN!!!If Zimmerman attacked him, Martin could stand his ground!
You can only "STAND YOUR GROUND" while you are being attacked!
If someone walks up to you and stabs you,,, then turns to run ,,, you are not standing your ground if you pull a gun and shoot them while they are trying to get away!
Stand your ground means exactly that,
It doesn't mean you can carry on the fight if the perp stops.

mechanic · « **Reply #80 on:** April 14, 2012, 03:12:53 PM »

Specific instructions given to me by neighborhood watch....I cannot follow onto private property other than my own other than to save a life, then it's my discretion. I cannot use deadly force except in the preservation of my own or other's lives. I cannot use force to prevent property crimes. I cannot approach anyone committing a crime, other than to save a life or prevent injury. In other words, I can't stop a man from stealing my neighbor's lawn mower...I can only call the cops for that.

Ben

williamlayton · « **Reply #81 on:** April 14, 2012, 11:42:05 PM »

TM did run according to Z and Z followed him.
Folks, I don't know who you are but if you follow me and will not stop I am going to figger out a way to get you off my tail.
I really think that Z was the cause of this unfornuate confrontation.
Blessings

m-g Willy · « **Reply #82 on:** April 15, 2012, 01:23:00 AM »

Quote from: williamlayton on April 14, 2012, 11:42:05 PM

I really think that Z was the cause of this unfornuate confrontation.
Blessings

He was PART of the cause.
But you have to figure in the 'IF" factor.
IF Z didn't confront Martin .
IF Martin would have just told Z to mind his own biz.
IF Martin would not have been pounding Z's head into the ground.

magooch · « **Reply #83 on:** April 15, 2012, 04:07:48 AM »

Quote from: williamlayton on April 14, 2012, 11:42:05 PM

TM did run according to Z and Z followed him.
Folks, I don't know who you are but if you follow me and will not stop I am going to figger out a way to get you off my tail.
I really think that Z was the cause of this unfornuate confrontation.
Blessings

Well the method the kid used didn't turn out so well for him.

Spirithawk · « **Reply #84 on:** April 15, 2012, 07:26:40 AM »

Guys, in a perfect world..........Oh wait.......we don't live in a perfect world. Both Travon and Zimmerman probably made bad choices. Instead of arguing over who was right or wrong we'd do well to learn from both their mistakes.

ironglow · « **Reply #85 on:** April 15, 2012, 10:15:45 AM »

Following someone establishes an uncomfortable situation..confronting somebody whom you think is following you heightens the discomfort. No real harm done yet...
Somebody then elevated it to a physical contact ..fist, bullet, club or whatever...upon them hands lies the fault..

Remember the old saying.." you can swing your fists around all you want and it's no business of mine.. but if your fist contacts my nose..then it's my business".

m-g Willy · « **Reply #86 on:** April 15, 2012, 02:09:09 PM »

[quote author=TM7

mg-willy.....you apparently have more information on the events of that evening than the rest of us, and so have made up your mind on the cause of the homicide, in that the Kid cause himself to get shot...

And I'm not sure at what part of the timeline the Kid was pounding Z, if he was at all..?
.
...TM7

I'm going off what the witness(John) said he seen.

m-g Willy · « **Reply #87 on:** April 15, 2012, 02:09:54 PM »

Quote from: ironglow on April 15, 2012, 10:15:45 AM

Following someone establishes an uncomfortable situation..confronting somebody whom you think is following you heightens the discomfort. No real harm done yet...
Somebody then elevated it to a physical contact ..fist, bullet, club or whatever...upon them hands lies the fault..

Remember the old saying.." you can swing your fists around all you want and it's no business of mine.. but if your fist contacts my nose..then it's my business".

I agree 100%

BUGEYE · « **Reply #88 on:** April 15, 2012, 02:18:53 PM »

the wound on the back of Zs head looked like a semi-circle cut from a can of iced-tea.

gstewart44 · « **Reply #89 on:** April 15, 2012, 02:29:51 PM »

Quote from: mechanic on April 14, 2012, 03:12:53 PM

Specific instructions given to me by neighborhood watch....I cannot follow onto private property other than my own other than to save a life, then it's my discretion. I cannot use deadly force except in the preservation of my own or other's lives. I cannot use force to prevent property crimes. I cannot approach anyone committing a crime, other than to save a life or prevent injury. In other words, I can't stop a man from stealing my neighbor's lawn mower...I can only call the cops for that.

Ben

Ben - we have a NW as well. Our rules say pretty much the same as what you have outlined above. I think that is common sense. As far as GZ goes I have a few questions for all who have read and responded to this thread:
When does being an observant member in your own community cross over into "stalking"?
Z was walking in the commons area between two rows of buildings to keep the "suspicious person" in sight. NW is about being observant and reporting.

Z did call 911 and when the operator told him "we don't need you to do that", Z responded "OK".
There has been much speculation that Z continued to follow after that. I don't believe for a second that any of us knows at what point Z turned around and started back towards his vehicle.

In my neighborhood there have been numerous mid day burglaries when most are at work. If I were at home and saw anyone suspicious and walked around to get a better look at them so I can better describe them to LEO, would you consider me a "stalker"?

I think the term stalking is being thrown about to show intent, so as to help bolster the charge of murder 2.