Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (1 Viewer)

[renesauz]

Not sure why the talk about bullet direction. That wouldn't be particualry relevant in a very close range shot, especially since the two were fighting/struggling. If they were within 2 feet of each other fighting over a gun, the bullet could have entered from almost any angle. Far more indicative would be the presence or absence of poweder burns and/or prints on the gun itself. (Did Trayvon have his hands on it at some point?)

The angle of entry is almost irrelevent.

 

[Clifford]

The screams for help were going on for a while before the bang.

And that's why I believe that if the prosecutor can prove the screams were from Martin, it would almost surely (see guys? no absolutes!) lead to a conviction. Because it would mean that, at the very least, Zimmerman had time to decide upon a course of action, and then chose to kill Martin. You don't take your time with self-defense.

ONe thing I get from this and other stories posted in association is that what is considered "self-defense" can actually be a cold, calculated decision to end's someone's life where whether or not the shooter was actually in any danger is allowed a wide degree of evaluation. If we are working under the premise that a single blow to the head can kill you, then the only justification needed for self-defense is the belief that someone could take a swing at you.The case from South Carolina, though apparently still under investigation as to whether the shooter will be charged, shows a man using self-defense when his victims are actually hiding from him.Another case, based on a 911 call from a homeowner, details a man informing officers that he knows the law and that he can legally shoot and kill burglars robbing the house next door. On the call he calmly describes his plan to kill the two suspects and at no point references any fear for himself whatsoever. He (while still on the phone) leaves the security of his home, goes outside to confront the robbers, says "Hello, you're dead." and shoots and kills both of them. This was ruled self-defense and the man was never charged.Another case in Florida detailed a man who shot and killed a drunk on his front porch who had mistakenly tried to gain entry to his house by mistake. The homeowner, armed, chose to leave his house, exit the front door to confront the man, and when the intruder asked for a light after being told he was at the wrong house, the man drew his gun and shot and killed him. This was ruled self-defense, despite the man claiming little fear for his life (he believed the man was reaching into his jacket while asking for a light, which he later admitted was likely a move to extract cigarettes) and expressed remorse for his actions to police at the scene. This man was never charged.So in all of these cases, self-defense was used, and the shooter was not arrested. In none of these cases did the shooter behave like someone who was in fear for their life. So somewhere along the way, self-defense became a defense that had little to nothing to do with the shooter needing to prove or even demonstrate that he was in fear for their life, and it became something else entirely.As I've said before, Zimmerman may have had racial motivation for being suspicious of Trayvon. And Sanford may have behaved differently had the victim been white. We'll never know.But what this case needs to cause us to discuss is not race, but whether self-defense as a defense has grown far beyond the law's original intent. In the above cases (you can google them if you want) we see clear evidence of it being used successfully to remove people who shoot and kill others from prosecution, even when their words and actions clearly demonstrate they were not in fear for their lives. I think that it has actually evolved into deputizing everyone who owns a gun, because in these cases it seems that as long as the shooter can make a reasonable claim of wrong-doing against the victim, then the shooter's state of mind becomes irrelevant.If we allow the "single-blow kill shot" to become the minimum criteria for that fear, then I can't really think of any situation in which some form of confrontation occurs where it isn't legal to kill the other person, claim self-defense, and not be charged.

 

[kentric]

Here's what I'm wondering (and keep in mind, this is just speculation): does Angela Corey have proof that she can demonstrate to a jury that the screaming on that tape is, in fact, Trayvon Martin?

Because if she has proof of that, then it seems to me that should be enough to convict Zimmerman. If Martin were the one screaming, "No! No!" then it doesn't matter if Martin was the one who attacked first. It wouldn't matter who is the aggressor, because it would prove that Zimmerman had the upper hand, could have held Martin at bay until the police arrived, or could have simply left the scene. The point is, he did not need to shoot Martin. Therefore, Zimmerman is definitely guilty of manslaughter or 2nd degree murder.

So if Corey can provide expert testimony or some other means to convince a jury that the screams were from Martin, I think that's enough. But I don't know if she has the means to prove this...

What she has to prove is up to the jury. If I was on the jury, your reasoning does not even come close to proving beyoud a reasonable doubt that Treyvon was retreating. I would need good eyewitness accounts in addition to that. Plus, the case law concerning stand you ground is probably different than most states, so the bar is probably a bit lower for when you can pull the trigger. If the case above where no charges were file against the guy who had to go to the car to get his gun and than shoot perpetrators who were hiding is any indication, the standard to when you can leathally use self-defense is really low, so a scream would not be enough.

The problem with asking this question is where you`re asking it (FBG)...we have 2 very wide divides here and it seems like no matter what evidence or possible evidence that comes to light, not to many people are willing to cross that divide.If you had an impartial jury who heard this case for the first time i couldnt imagine that too many people would dismiss those screams , if proven to be treyvon, and set zimmerman free. The problem for zimmerman is he brought the gun to that party, i think that may work against him even if it was him screaming and not trey. Im convinced (they lasted way to long ) the screams were not from someone being beaten but from someone who is trying not to get shot. That could be either trey or george.

The screams seem to have gone on for at least 10 seconds. Are you trying to say that someone would be screaming for help for 10 seconds because he had a gun pointed at him? That goes against the eyewitness accounts (with one man on top of another). Tough argument you're trying to make here.

the eyewitness accounts say that the two people were wrestling or fighting at close quarters. Im saying that they could have been wrestling for control of the gun, and that could last a while im guessing. If you and i are on the ground and i pull a gun out its very concievable that you would grab my arm to push it away from being aimed at you and that struggle could take 10 or 15 seconds before i got my arm loose long enough to get a shot off.

Guess I just can't see why you'd think the screams are more likely coming from someone trying not to get shot versus someone taking a beating. To me it would be the other way around. If your hypothesis (not saying you're suggesting this is what did happen) that they could have been struggling for 10-15 seconds for the gun held true, then it would be difficult to envision Zimmerman getting convicted. Even if he pulled the gun on Trayvon, I would expect that Z could say he was just using it to control the situation and when Trayvon grabbed for it he feared for his life. Happens all the time in Florida I'm told.

 

[Charlie Frown]

looks like a possible broken nose and head lac to me.

"Possible". Hard to tell from that.

Unless he had a recent rhinoplasty I would say he had taken a shot to the beak (I have seen plenty of broken noses). Either way I am hopeful the truth will come out eventually. My main point is that I don't think they have anything on him to prove it wasn't self defense/stand your ground but the evidence we have seems to support his story.We should have a better idea in the next two days.

 

[jonessed]

looks like a possible broken nose and head lac to me.

"Possible". Hard to tell from that.

Unless he had a recent rhinoplasty I would say he had taken a shot to the beak (I have seen plenty of broken noses). Either way I am hopeful the truth will come out eventually. My main point is that I don't think they have anything on him to prove it wasn't self defense/stand your ground but the evidence we have seems to support his story.We should have a better idea in the next two days.

Apparently we can be 100% sure that a garbled word in a phonecall that experts can't identify with extensive editing is the word "coons", but someone's mangled nose on a photo is clearly not evidence of an actual blow to the nose. That's the problem with these long, emotional threads. People get too personally involved to acknowledge the obvious. They essentially become fanatics.

 

[TexanFan02]

looks like a possible broken nose and head lac to me.

That site is interesting. The Editor admits to sloppy sensationalist journalism, but leaves the posts he criticizes up.

 

[identikit]

Zimmerman to be charged, per a report @ the Washington Post...

By Sari Horwitz, Wednesday, April 11, 1:56 PM

Florida special prosecutor Angela Corey plans to announce as early as Wednesday afternoon that she is charging neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, according to a law enforcement official close to the investigation.

It was not immediately clear what charge Zimmerman will face.

Martin, 17 and unarmed, was shot and killed Feb. 26 by Zimmerman, who said he was acting in self-defense. Police in Sanford, Fla., where the shooting took place, did not charge Zimmerman, citing the state’s “stand your ground” law.

Corey told reporters Tuesday night that she would hold a news conference about the case within 72 hours. A news release from her office said the event will be held in Sanford or Jacksonville, Fla.

Benjamin Crump, who is representing the Martin family, said this week that Corey’s office had asked where Trayvon’s parents would be each day this week. They arrived Wednesday in Washington for a civil rights conference organized by the Rev. Al Sharpton, where they are scheduled to speak.

The announcement of a charge against Zimmerman would come a day after Zimmerman’s attorneys withdrew from the case, citing their inability to contact Zimmerman.

Lawyers Craig Sonner and Hal Uhrig on Tuesday expressed concern about Zimmerman’s emotional and physical well-being, saying he has taken actions without consulting them. They also said they do not know where Zimmerman is.

“You can stop looking in Florida,” Uhrig told reporters. “Look much further away than that.”

Corey said Monday that she would not bring the case before a grand jury, which was expected to convene this week. She said her decision to forgo the grand jury should not be viewed as a factor in determining whether charges will be filed.

Corey has indicated in recent weeks that she might not need a grand jury to bring charges against Zimmerman.

The lawyers said they stand by their assertions that Zimmerman acted in self-defense when he killed the 17-year-old, who was unarmed, but they acknowledged that they formed their impressions without meeting Zimmerman.

http://www.washingto...5oAT_story.html

 

[timschochet]

Zimmerman to be charged, per a report @ the Washington Post...

By Sari Horwitz, Wednesday, April 11, 1:56 PM

Florida special prosecutor Angela Corey plans to announce as early as Wednesday afternoon that she is charging neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, according to a law enforcement official close to the investigation.

It was not immediately clear what charge Zimmerman will face.

Martin, 17 and unarmed, was shot and killed Feb. 26 by Zimmerman, who said he was acting in self-defense. Police in Sanford, Fla., where the shooting took place, did not charge Zimmerman, citing the state’s “stand your ground” law.

Corey told reporters Tuesday night that she would hold a news conference about the case within 72 hours. A news release from her office said the event will be held in Sanford or Jacksonville, Fla.

Benjamin Crump, who is representing the Martin family, said this week that Corey’s office had asked where Trayvon’s parents would be each day this week. They arrived Wednesday in Washington for a civil rights conference organized by the Rev. Al Sharpton, where they are scheduled to speak.

The announcement of a charge against Zimmerman would come a day after Zimmerman’s attorneys withdrew from the case, citing their inability to contact Zimmerman.

Lawyers Craig Sonner and Hal Uhrig on Tuesday expressed concern about Zimmerman’s emotional and physical well-being, saying he has taken actions without consulting them. They also said they do not know where Zimmerman is.

“You can stop looking in Florida,” Uhrig told reporters. “Look much further away than that.”

Corey said Monday that she would not bring the case before a grand jury, which was expected to convene this week. She said her decision to forgo the grand jury should not be viewed as a factor in determining whether charges will be filed.

Corey has indicated in recent weeks that she might not need a grand jury to bring charges against Zimmerman.

The lawyers said they stand by their assertions that Zimmerman acted in self-defense when he killed the 17-year-old, who was unarmed, but they acknowledged that they formed their impressions without meeting Zimmerman.

http://www.washingto...5oAT_story.html

Wow. I'd be surprised if the Post would run with this if they didn't have a pretty good source.

 

[timschochet]

The screams for help were going on for a while before the bang.

And that's why I believe that if the prosecutor can prove the screams were from Martin, it would almost surely (see guys? no absolutes!) lead to a conviction. Because it would mean that, at the very least, Zimmerman had time to decide upon a course of action, and then chose to kill Martin. You don't take your time with self-defense.

ONe thing I get from this and other stories posted in association is that what is considered "self-defense" can actually be a cold, calculated decision to end's someone's life where whether or not the shooter was actually in any danger is allowed a wide degree of evaluation. If we are working under the premise that a single blow to the head can kill you, then the only justification needed for self-defense is the belief that someone could take a swing at you.The case from South Carolina, though apparently still under investigation as to whether the shooter will be charged, shows a man using self-defense when his victims are actually hiding from him.Another case, based on a 911 call from a homeowner, details a man informing officers that he knows the law and that he can legally shoot and kill burglars robbing the house next door. On the call he calmly describes his plan to kill the two suspects and at no point references any fear for himself whatsoever. He (while still on the phone) leaves the security of his home, goes outside to confront the robbers, says "Hello, you're dead." and shoots and kills both of them. This was ruled self-defense and the man was never charged.Another case in Florida detailed a man who shot and killed a drunk on his front porch who had mistakenly tried to gain entry to his house by mistake. The homeowner, armed, chose to leave his house, exit the front door to confront the man, and when the intruder asked for a light after being told he was at the wrong house, the man drew his gun and shot and killed him. This was ruled self-defense, despite the man claiming little fear for his life (he believed the man was reaching into his jacket while asking for a light, which he later admitted was likely a move to extract cigarettes) and expressed remorse for his actions to police at the scene. This man was never charged.So in all of these cases, self-defense was used, and the shooter was not arrested. In none of these cases did the shooter behave like someone who was in fear for their life. So somewhere along the way, self-defense became a defense that had little to nothing to do with the shooter needing to prove or even demonstrate that he was in fear for their life, and it became something else entirely.As I've said before, Zimmerman may have had racial motivation for being suspicious of Trayvon. And Sanford may have behaved differently had the victim been white. We'll never know.But what this case needs to cause us to discuss is not race, but whether self-defense as a defense has grown far beyond the law's original intent. In the above cases (you can google them if you want) we see clear evidence of it being used successfully to remove people who shoot and kill others from prosecution, even when their words and actions clearly demonstrate they were not in fear for their lives. I think that it has actually evolved into deputizing everyone who owns a gun, because in these cases it seems that as long as the shooter can make a reasonable claim of wrong-doing against the victim, then the shooter's state of mind becomes irrelevant.If we allow the "single-blow kill shot" to become the minimum criteria for that fear, then I can't really think of any situation in which some form of confrontation occurs where it isn't legal to kill the other person, claim self-defense, and not be charged.

Great posting, Clifford. Very informative. And for me, shocking and depressing. If this is what "self-defense" has become, then I guess I don't recognize the term. Common sense tells me that unless youre life is IMMEDIATELY in danger, you shouldn't be allowed to kill another person. But I guess the law says differently.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Cnn reporting he will be charged as well. And they are using a picture of Zim in a suit and tie.

 

[the moops]

And they are using a picture of Zim in a suit and tie.

Probably to make him look more white

 

[pantagrapher]

Poor guy.

 

[pantagrapher]

And they are using a picture of Zim in a suit and tie.

Probably to make him look more white

 

[timschochet]

I expected a bigger reaction about this from the FFA. Obviously this woman has been pressured by political forces, right? She never would have indicted otherwise, right?

 

[dickey moe]

Everyone happy now?

 

[TexanFan02]

I expected a bigger reaction about this from the FFA. Obviously this woman has been pressured by political forces, right? She never would have indicted otherwise, right?

We don't know what she's charging him with yet.

 

[identikit]

I expected a bigger reaction about this from the FFA. Obviously this woman has been pressured by political forces, right? She never would have indicted otherwise, right?

Obviously she knows way more facts then we do, and is proceeding as she sees fit in her role as special prosecutor.

 

[Chaos Commish]

You can shoot from as many angles on your back as you can standing. It's a silly riff in the conversation. He was hit in the upper chest. Zimmerman could have been on his back and shot up or down or straight into his upper chest. He could have done so left to right or right to left or just straight.

The screaming can be heard at the very beginning of the 22 second call with the best audio and the loudest gunshot. There were two breaks in the screaming of about 5-8 seconds.

Certainly the cries for help could be Zimmerman as he claimed all along. They came about 10 seconds into that call.

Certainly the incoherent wails before the gunshot could be Trayvon, on top of Zimmerman, but now looking at a gun about to kill him.

 

[timschochet]

I expected a bigger reaction about this from the FFA. Obviously this woman has been pressured by political forces, right? She never would have indicted otherwise, right?

Obviously she knows way more facts then we do, and is proceeding as she sees fit in her role as special prosecutor.

Thank you. I made this assumption several days ago, and I was taken to task for it. If she had decided not to indict, that would have been enough for me. The fact that she has chosen to indict lends weight to his probable guilt, IMO.

 

[culdeus]

Cnn reporting he will be charged as well. And they are using a picture of Zim in a suit and tie.

He also looks a lot whiter in that photo.

 

[Charlie Frown]

Press conference at 6pm EST.

 

[timschochet]

You can shoot from as many angles on your back as you can standing. It's a silly riff in the conversation. He was hit in the upper chest. Zimmerman could have been on his back and shot up or down or straight into his upper chest. He could have done so left to right or right to left or just straight. The screaming can be heard at the very beginning of the 22 second call with the best audio and the loudest gunshot. There were two breaks in the screaming of about 5-8 seconds.Certainly the cries for help could be Zimmerman as he claimed all along. They came about 10 seconds into that call.Certainly the incoherent wails before the gunshot could be Trayvon, on top of Zimmerman, but now looking at a gun about to kill him.

1. If the cries are Zimmerman, I don't see how anyone could convict him.2. If the gunshot was made in such a way as to conclusively prove that Zimmerman was on the ground on his back with Martin above him, I don't see how anyone could convict Zimmerman. Either of these points would have to create doubt in your mind so long as you are a reasonable person. Either points lends itself to at least the possibility of self-defense, and if that possibility is there, how can you convict?

 

[JaxBill]

I expected a bigger reaction about this from the FFA. Obviously this woman has been pressured by political forces, right? She never would have indicted otherwise, right?

I think a lot of people on both sides of this were expecting AT LEAST a manslaughter indictment. And if she "only" indicts on manslaughter, I would expect more outrage and marches.

 

[timschochet]

I expected a bigger reaction about this from the FFA. Obviously this woman has been pressured by political forces, right? She never would have indicted otherwise, right?

I think a lot of people on both sides of this were expecting AT LEAST a manslaughter indictment. And if she "only" indicts on manslaughter, I would expect more outrage and marches.

That probably depends on the punishment involved. Does anyone know what manslaughter means in terms of jail time in the state of Florida? And what second degree murder means?

 

[TexanFan02]

I expected a bigger reaction about this from the FFA. Obviously this woman has been pressured by political forces, right? She never would have indicted otherwise, right?

I think a lot of people on both sides of this were expecting AT LEAST a manslaughter indictment. And if she "only" indicts on manslaughter, I would expect more outrage and marches.

I think manslaughter may be the appropriate charge.

 

[TexanFan02]

I expected a bigger reaction about this from the FFA. Obviously this woman has been pressured by political forces, right? She never would have indicted otherwise, right?

I think a lot of people on both sides of this were expecting AT LEAST a manslaughter indictment. And if she "only" indicts on manslaughter, I would expect more outrage and marches.

That probably depends on the punishment involved. Does anyone know what manslaughter means in terms of jail time in the state of Florida? And what second degree murder means?

I believe in Florida if it's manslaughter and a gun was used, it's a mandatory 10 or 20 year sentence. But I just read that from a link in this thread, I don't know if it's accurate.

 

[timschochet]

I expected a bigger reaction about this from the FFA. Obviously this woman has been pressured by political forces, right? She never would have indicted otherwise, right?

I think a lot of people on both sides of this were expecting AT LEAST a manslaughter indictment. And if she "only" indicts on manslaughter, I would expect more outrage and marches.

That probably depends on the punishment involved. Does anyone know what manslaughter means in terms of jail time in the state of Florida? And what second degree murder means?

I believe in Florida if it's manslaughter and a gun was used, it's a mandatory 10 or 20 year sentence. But I just read that from a link in this thread, I don't know if it's accurate.

If that's true, it's enough, actually more than enough. Nobody is going to be outraged over that.I'm curious as to why manslaughter with a gun would be considered more serious than some other weapon which achelved the same result.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Anyone know if Zimmerman owns a white Bronco?

 

[identikit]

I expected a bigger reaction about this from the FFA. Obviously this woman has been pressured by political forces, right? She never would have indicted otherwise, right?

I think a lot of people on both sides of this were expecting AT LEAST a manslaughter indictment. And if she "only" indicts on manslaughter, I would expect more outrage and marches.

That probably depends on the punishment involved. Does anyone know what manslaughter means in terms of jail time in the state of Florida? And what second degree murder means?

I believe in Florida if it's manslaughter and a gun was used, it's a mandatory 10 or 20 year sentence. But I just read that from a link in this thread, I don't know if it's accurate.

If that's true, it's enough, actually more than enough. Nobody is going to be outraged over that.I'm curious as to why manslaughter with a gun would be considered more serious than some other weapon which achelved the same result.

Not true.

 

[Charlie Frown]

Florida state attorney Angela Corey, who is acting as a special prosecutor in the high-profile shooting death of teenager Trayvon Martin, has scheduled a 6 p.m. ET news conference to "release new information" regarding the case, her office just announced.

new info?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I expected a bigger reaction about this from the FFA. Obviously this woman has been pressured by political forces, right? She never would have indicted otherwise, right?

I think a lot of people on both sides of this were expecting AT LEAST a manslaughter indictment. And if she "only" indicts on manslaughter, I would expect more outrage and marches.

That probably depends on the punishment involved. Does anyone know what manslaughter means in terms of jail time in the state of Florida? And what second degree murder means?

I believe in Florida if it's manslaughter and a gun was used, it's a mandatory 10 or 20 year sentence. But I just read that from a link in this thread, I don't know if it's accurate.

If that's true, it's enough, actually more than enough. Nobody is going to be outraged over that.I'm curious as to why manslaughter with a gun would be considered more serious than some other weapon which achelved the same result.

Its life if it involves a person over 65 or a child under 18 i believe, i posted something waaay back in this thread.

 

[Clifford]

The screams for help were going on for a while before the bang.

And that's why I believe that if the prosecutor can prove the screams were from Martin, it would almost surely (see guys? no absolutes!) lead to a conviction. Because it would mean that, at the very least, Zimmerman had time to decide upon a course of action, and then chose to kill Martin. You don't take your time with self-defense.

ONe thing I get from this and other stories posted in association is that what is considered "self-defense" can actually be a cold, calculated decision to end's someone's life where whether or not the shooter was actually in any danger is allowed a wide degree of evaluation. If we are working under the premise that a single blow to the head can kill you, then the only justification needed for self-defense is the belief that someone could take a swing at you.The case from South Carolina, though apparently still under investigation as to whether the shooter will be charged, shows a man using self-defense when his victims are actually hiding from him.

Another case, based on a 911 call from a homeowner, details a man informing officers that he knows the law and that he can legally shoot and kill burglars robbing the house next door. On the call he calmly describes his plan to kill the two suspects and at no point references any fear for himself whatsoever. He (while still on the phone) leaves the security of his home, goes outside to confront the robbers, says "Hello, you're dead." and shoots and kills both of them. This was ruled self-defense and the man was never charged.

Another case in Florida detailed a man who shot and killed a drunk on his front porch who had mistakenly tried to gain entry to his house by mistake. The homeowner, armed, chose to leave his house, exit the front door to confront the man, and when the intruder asked for a light after being told he was at the wrong house, the man drew his gun and shot and killed him. This was ruled self-defense, despite the man claiming little fear for his life (he believed the man was reaching into his jacket while asking for a light, which he later admitted was likely a move to extract cigarettes) and expressed remorse for his actions to police at the scene. This man was never charged.

So in all of these cases, self-defense was used, and the shooter was not arrested. In none of these cases did the shooter behave like someone who was in fear for their life. So somewhere along the way, self-defense became a defense that had little to nothing to do with the shooter needing to prove or even demonstrate that he was in fear for their life, and it became something else entirely.

As I've said before, Zimmerman may have had racial motivation for being suspicious of Trayvon. And Sanford may have behaved differently had the victim been white. We'll never know.

But what this case needs to cause us to discuss is not race, but whether self-defense as a defense has grown far beyond the law's original intent. In the above cases (you can google them if you want) we see clear evidence of it being used successfully to remove people who shoot and kill others from prosecution, even when their words and actions clearly demonstrate they were not in fear for their lives. I think that it has actually evolved into deputizing everyone who owns a gun, because in these cases it seems that as long as the shooter can make a reasonable claim of wrong-doing against the victim, then the shooter's state of mind becomes irrelevant.

If we allow the "single-blow kill shot" to become the minimum criteria for that fear, then I can't really think of any situation in which some form of confrontation occurs where it isn't legal to kill the other person, claim self-defense, and not be charged.

Great posting, Clifford. Very informative. And for me, shocking and depressing. If this is what "self-defense" has become, then I guess I don't recognize the term. Common sense tells me that unless youre life is IMMEDIATELY in danger, you shouldn't be allowed to kill another person. But I guess the law says differently.

There are actually quite a few more like these around. However, it seems the Sharpton and crew are ensuring that this debate never actually happens.Here's a link to the call on the bolded:

http://youtu.be/_7jqLie6-Y0?t=1m18s

started it at the choice part but rewind and listen to whole thing if you want. Dude was never charged. How many people feel he was acting in self-defense?

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

“You can stop looking in Florida,” Uhrig told reporters. “Look much further away than that.”

Wow. I'd be surprised if the Post would run with this if they didn't have a pretty good source.

What do they mean by "look much further away"? Did George flee the country?

his former attorneys said not to look for him in Florida. Which is interesting. I am surprised he wasn't instructed not to leave the state while he was under investigation. Based on the website and his recent behavior with his lawyers, he may very well be a flight and/or suicide risk.

 

[Clifford]

He has a four-year degree. That was all Sanford needed to dismiss him as a flight risk.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

“You can stop looking in Florida,” Uhrig told reporters. “Look much further away than that.”

Wow. I'd be surprised if the Post would run with this if they didn't have a pretty good source.

What do they mean by "look much further away"? Did George flee the country?

his former attorneys said not to look for him in Florida. Which is interesting. I am surprised he wasn't instructed not to leave the state while he was under investigation. Based on the website and his recent behavior with his lawyers, he may very well be a flight and/or suicide risk.

thats why people get arrested at the scene of a murder, its a serious crime and people will flee if given the chance.

 

[Yenrub]

“You can stop looking in Florida,” Uhrig told reporters. “Look much further away than that.”

Wow. I'd be surprised if the Post would run with this if they didn't have a pretty good source.

What do they mean by "look much further away"? Did George flee the country?

Well he has had well over a month to make arrangements to leave the country and it looks like he has some new found income thanks to the paypal link on his website so he could very well be out of the country.Which countries nearby don’t have extradition to the US?

 

[The Commish]

Not sure why the talk about bullet direction. That wouldn't be particualry relevant in a very close range shot, especially since the two were fighting/struggling. If they were within 2 feet of each other fighting over a gun, the bullet could have entered from almost any angle. Far more indicative would be the presence or absence of poweder burns and/or prints on the gun itself. (Did Trayvon have his hands on it at some point?)The angle of entry is almost irrelevent.

yup

 

[SacramentoBob]

“You can stop looking in Florida,” Uhrig told reporters. “Look much further away than that.”

Wow. I'd be surprised if the Post would run with this if they didn't have a pretty good source.

What do they mean by "look much further away"? Did George flee the country?

his former attorneys said not to look for him in Florida. Which is interesting. I am surprised he wasn't instructed not to leave the state while he was under investigation. Based on the website and his recent behavior with his lawyers, he may very well be a flight and/or suicide risk.

I guess he's in one of those Hispanic countries now.

 

[Mello]

Everyone happy now?

Yes. If this would have happened shortly after the killing, this wouldn't be news. Now, it will at least delay the riots until he's found not guilty.

 

[SacramentoBob]

it looks like he has some new found income thanks to the paypal link on his website

Just so we're keeping score, the same people who were quick to post articles and comments about Trayvon's mother copyrighting a phrase and starting a website were strangely silent about Zimmerman doing the same thing.

 

[Witz]

it looks like he has some new found income thanks to the paypal link on his website

Just so we're keeping score, the same people who were quick to post articles and comments about Trayvon's mother copyrighting a phrase and starting a website were strangely silent about Zimmerman doing the same thing.

Do you honestly think they are the same thing? Honestly?

 

[TexanFan02]

it looks like he has some new found income thanks to the paypal link on his website

Just so we're keeping score, the same people who were quick to post articles and comments about Trayvon's mother copyrighting a phrase and starting a website were strangely silent about Zimmerman doing the same thing.

 

[FavreCo]

Everyone happy now?

Yes. If this would have happened shortly after the killing, this wouldn't be news. Now, it will at least delay the riots until he's found not guilty.

There are going to be some disappointed rioters when he kills himself. Charges to be handed down soon.

 

[JaxBill]

“You can stop looking in Florida,” Uhrig told reporters. “Look much further away than that.”

Wow. I'd be surprised if the Post would run with this if they didn't have a pretty good source.

What do they mean by "look much further away"? Did George flee the country?

his former attorneys said not to look for him in Florida. Which is interesting. I am surprised he wasn't instructed not to leave the state while he was under investigation. Based on the website and his recent behavior with his lawyers, he may very well be a flight and/or suicide risk.

I guess he's in one of those Hispanic countries now.

Maybe he'll pass himself off as as Ozzie Guillen and go to Cuba.

 

[SacramentoBob]

it looks like he has some new found income thanks to the paypal link on his website

Just so we're keeping score, the same people who were quick to post articles and comments about Trayvon's mother copyrighting a phrase and starting a website were strangely silent about Zimmerman doing the same thing.

Do you honestly think they are the same thing? Honestly?

True, I haven't heard that the Martin family was accepting Paypal donations.

 

[glock]

The screams for help were going on for a while before the bang.

And that's why I believe that if the prosecutor can prove the screams were from Martin, it would almost surely (see guys? no absolutes!) lead to a conviction. Because it would mean that, at the very least, Zimmerman had time to decide upon a course of action, and then chose to kill Martin. You don't take your time with self-defense.

ONe thing I get from this and other stories posted in association is that what is considered "self-defense" can actually be a cold, calculated decision to end's someone's life where whether or not the shooter was actually in any danger is allowed a wide degree of evaluation. If we are working under the premise that a single blow to the head can kill you, then the only justification needed for self-defense is the belief that someone could take a swing at you.The case from South Carolina, though apparently still under investigation as to whether the shooter will be charged, shows a man using self-defense when his victims are actually hiding from him.

Another case, based on a 911 call from a homeowner, details a man informing officers that he knows the law and that he can legally shoot and kill burglars robbing the house next door. On the call he calmly describes his plan to kill the two suspects and at no point references any fear for himself whatsoever. He (while still on the phone) leaves the security of his home, goes outside to confront the robbers, says "Hello, you're dead." and shoots and kills both of them. This was ruled self-defense and the man was never charged.

Another case in Florida detailed a man who shot and killed a drunk on his front porch who had mistakenly tried to gain entry to his house by mistake. The homeowner, armed, chose to leave his house, exit the front door to confront the man, and when the intruder asked for a light after being told he was at the wrong house, the man drew his gun and shot and killed him. This was ruled self-defense, despite the man claiming little fear for his life (he believed the man was reaching into his jacket while asking for a light, which he later admitted was likely a move to extract cigarettes) and expressed remorse for his actions to police at the scene. This man was never charged.

So in all of these cases, self-defense was used, and the shooter was not arrested. In none of these cases did the shooter behave like someone who was in fear for their life. So somewhere along the way, self-defense became a defense that had little to nothing to do with the shooter needing to prove or even demonstrate that he was in fear for their life, and it became something else entirely.

As I've said before, Zimmerman may have had racial motivation for being suspicious of Trayvon. And Sanford may have behaved differently had the victim been white. We'll never know.

But what this case needs to cause us to discuss is not race, but whether self-defense as a defense has grown far beyond the law's original intent. In the above cases (you can google them if you want) we see clear evidence of it being used successfully to remove people who shoot and kill others from prosecution, even when their words and actions clearly demonstrate they were not in fear for their lives. I think that it has actually evolved into deputizing everyone who owns a gun, because in these cases it seems that as long as the shooter can make a reasonable claim of wrong-doing against the victim, then the shooter's state of mind becomes irrelevant.

If we allow the "single-blow kill shot" to become the minimum criteria for that fear, then I can't really think of any situation in which some form of confrontation occurs where it isn't legal to kill the other person, claim self-defense, and not be charged.

Great posting, Clifford. Very informative. And for me, shocking and depressing. If this is what "self-defense" has become, then I guess I don't recognize the term. Common sense tells me that unless youre life is IMMEDIATELY in danger, you shouldn't be allowed to kill another person. But I guess the law says differently.

There are actually quite a few more like these around. However, it seems the Sharpton and crew are ensuring that this debate never actually happens.Here's a link to the call on the bolded:

http://youtu.be/_7jqLie6-Y0?t=1m18s

started it at the choice part but rewind and listen to whole thing if you want. Dude was never charged. How many people feel he was acting in self-defense?

And we never had a thread on this? The grand jury simply opted not to file charges...

 

[Witz]

it looks like he has some new found income thanks to the paypal link on his website

Just so we're keeping score, the same people who were quick to post articles and comments about Trayvon's mother copyrighting a phrase and starting a website were strangely silent about Zimmerman doing the same thing.

Do you honestly think they are the same thing? Honestly?

True, I haven't heard that the Martin family was accepting Paypal donations.

When one tries to be clever, it usually helps if they get it right the first time. Seeking to copyright a name and set of phrases for financial gain is vastly different than setting up a website to solicit donations for a possible legal defense but you already knew that, didn't you.

 

[Sammy3469]

Can't wait for Christo to tell me why whatever charges are coming down won't stick

 

[Clifford]

The screams for help were going on for a while before the bang.

And that's why I believe that if the prosecutor can prove the screams were from Martin, it would almost surely (see guys? no absolutes!) lead to a conviction. Because it would mean that, at the very least, Zimmerman had time to decide upon a course of action, and then chose to kill Martin. You don't take your time with self-defense.

ONe thing I get from this and other stories posted in association is that what is considered "self-defense" can actually be a cold, calculated decision to end's someone's life where whether or not the shooter was actually in any danger is allowed a wide degree of evaluation. If we are working under the premise that a single blow to the head can kill you, then the only justification needed for self-defense is the belief that someone could take a swing at you.The case from South Carolina, though apparently still under investigation as to whether the shooter will be charged, shows a man using self-defense when his victims are actually hiding from him.

Another case, based on a 911 call from a homeowner, details a man informing officers that he knows the law and that he can legally shoot and kill burglars robbing the house next door. On the call he calmly describes his plan to kill the two suspects and at no point references any fear for himself whatsoever. He (while still on the phone) leaves the security of his home, goes outside to confront the robbers, says "Hello, you're dead." and shoots and kills both of them. This was ruled self-defense and the man was never charged.

Another case in Florida detailed a man who shot and killed a drunk on his front porch who had mistakenly tried to gain entry to his house by mistake. The homeowner, armed, chose to leave his house, exit the front door to confront the man, and when the intruder asked for a light after being told he was at the wrong house, the man drew his gun and shot and killed him. This was ruled self-defense, despite the man claiming little fear for his life (he believed the man was reaching into his jacket while asking for a light, which he later admitted was likely a move to extract cigarettes) and expressed remorse for his actions to police at the scene. This man was never charged.

So in all of these cases, self-defense was used, and the shooter was not arrested. In none of these cases did the shooter behave like someone who was in fear for their life. So somewhere along the way, self-defense became a defense that had little to nothing to do with the shooter needing to prove or even demonstrate that he was in fear for their life, and it became something else entirely.

As I've said before, Zimmerman may have had racial motivation for being suspicious of Trayvon. And Sanford may have behaved differently had the victim been white. We'll never know.

But what this case needs to cause us to discuss is not race, but whether self-defense as a defense has grown far beyond the law's original intent. In the above cases (you can google them if you want) we see clear evidence of it being used successfully to remove people who shoot and kill others from prosecution, even when their words and actions clearly demonstrate they were not in fear for their lives. I think that it has actually evolved into deputizing everyone who owns a gun, because in these cases it seems that as long as the shooter can make a reasonable claim of wrong-doing against the victim, then the shooter's state of mind becomes irrelevant.

If we allow the "single-blow kill shot" to become the minimum criteria for that fear, then I can't really think of any situation in which some form of confrontation occurs where it isn't legal to kill the other person, claim self-defense, and not be charged.

Great posting, Clifford. Very informative. And for me, shocking and depressing. If this is what "self-defense" has become, then I guess I don't recognize the term. Common sense tells me that unless youre life is IMMEDIATELY in danger, you shouldn't be allowed to kill another person. But I guess the law says differently.

There are actually quite a few more like these around. However, it seems the Sharpton and crew are ensuring that this debate never actually happens.Here's a link to the call on the bolded:

http://youtu.be/_7jqLie6-Y0?t=1m18s

started it at the choice part but rewind and listen to whole thing if you want. Dude was never charged. How many people feel he was acting in self-defense?

And we never had a thread on this? The grand jury simply opted not to file charges...

Kinda surprised it has not been covered more given the similarities to this case:Questionable self-defense claim

Call to police prior

Willful vigilanteism against police advice

If anything Zimmerman could have a much stronger self-defense claim than this guy, and he got off scott free.

Like I've been saying, when you take an already enlarged notion of what self-defense actually is, and start adding in "stand your ground" statutes that make that applicable anywhere, you have basically deputized anyone with a gun. Quite clear the standard has changed from fearing for your life to performing some sort of vigilante justice being permitted by our society.

Again, this guy left his house and shot and killed two people. Yet if your actions prior to "fearing for your life" can't be examined as part of the claim, then you can literally throw your armed self willingly into any situation, despite knowing full well doing so will likely require you killing someone, and still claim self-defense. After the shots ("Hello, you're dead") the guy immediately builds the case for fearing for his life (they were coming on to my property, I didn't know what to do).

If this is where the gun laws and the lobbies that get them passed have taken us, well, decide for yourselves...

 

[TexanFan02]

The screams for help were going on for a while before the bang.

And that's why I believe that if the prosecutor can prove the screams were from Martin, it would almost surely (see guys? no absolutes!) lead to a conviction. Because it would mean that, at the very least, Zimmerman had time to decide upon a course of action, and then chose to kill Martin. You don't take your time with self-defense.

ONe thing I get from this and other stories posted in association is that what is considered "self-defense" can actually be a cold, calculated decision to end's someone's life where whether or not the shooter was actually in any danger is allowed a wide degree of evaluation. If we are working under the premise that a single blow to the head can kill you, then the only justification needed for self-defense is the belief that someone could take a swing at you.The case from South Carolina, though apparently still under investigation as to whether the shooter will be charged, shows a man using self-defense when his victims are actually hiding from him.

Another case, based on a 911 call from a homeowner, details a man informing officers that he knows the law and that he can legally shoot and kill burglars robbing the house next door. On the call he calmly describes his plan to kill the two suspects and at no point references any fear for himself whatsoever. He (while still on the phone) leaves the security of his home, goes outside to confront the robbers, says "Hello, you're dead." and shoots and kills both of them. This was ruled self-defense and the man was never charged.

Another case in Florida detailed a man who shot and killed a drunk on his front porch who had mistakenly tried to gain entry to his house by mistake. The homeowner, armed, chose to leave his house, exit the front door to confront the man, and when the intruder asked for a light after being told he was at the wrong house, the man drew his gun and shot and killed him. This was ruled self-defense, despite the man claiming little fear for his life (he believed the man was reaching into his jacket while asking for a light, which he later admitted was likely a move to extract cigarettes) and expressed remorse for his actions to police at the scene. This man was never charged.

So in all of these cases, self-defense was used, and the shooter was not arrested. In none of these cases did the shooter behave like someone who was in fear for their life. So somewhere along the way, self-defense became a defense that had little to nothing to do with the shooter needing to prove or even demonstrate that he was in fear for their life, and it became something else entirely.

As I've said before, Zimmerman may have had racial motivation for being suspicious of Trayvon. And Sanford may have behaved differently had the victim been white. We'll never know.

But what this case needs to cause us to discuss is not race, but whether self-defense as a defense has grown far beyond the law's original intent. In the above cases (you can google them if you want) we see clear evidence of it being used successfully to remove people who shoot and kill others from prosecution, even when their words and actions clearly demonstrate they were not in fear for their lives. I think that it has actually evolved into deputizing everyone who owns a gun, because in these cases it seems that as long as the shooter can make a reasonable claim of wrong-doing against the victim, then the shooter's state of mind becomes irrelevant.

If we allow the "single-blow kill shot" to become the minimum criteria for that fear, then I can't really think of any situation in which some form of confrontation occurs where it isn't legal to kill the other person, claim self-defense, and not be charged.

Great posting, Clifford. Very informative. And for me, shocking and depressing. If this is what "self-defense" has become, then I guess I don't recognize the term. Common sense tells me that unless youre life is IMMEDIATELY in danger, you shouldn't be allowed to kill another person. But I guess the law says differently.

There are actually quite a few more like these around. However, it seems the Sharpton and crew are ensuring that this debate never actually happens.Here's a link to the call on the bolded:

http://youtu.be/_7jqLie6-Y0?t=1m18s

started it at the choice part but rewind and listen to whole thing if you want. Dude was never charged. How many people feel he was acting in self-defense?

And we never had a thread on this? The grand jury simply opted not to file charges...

There was a thread on it. The usual suspects defended the shooters actions. Coincidentally, the shooter was white and the victims were black. What's different about that case is:

A. The victims were attempting to commit a crime.

B. The 911 operator specifically told him not to go outside, he defied her and basically said he was going to shoot him.

C. One of the victims was shot in the back.

He was no billed by a Grand Jury, but the prosecutor could have just convened another one. He didn't, which leads me to believe he wasn't trying very hard to get an indictment.

The shooter subsequently said he was haunted by his actions that day and had to move away.