African-American teenager shot by neighborhood watch (UPDATE: Shooter now charged)

[CentMSSaint]

Denzien, lighten up. No need to be so hard on everyone. We all have our opinions. And they are just that, opinions based on what we've seen, heard, and/or read. Sometimes it seems you are attacking others on here with your neg reps and condescending comments. That's why I made the sarcastic comments and tagged them as such to lighten the mood. I believe that none on here want to see Zimmerman railroaded or unneccessarily prosecuted. We all want to see justice served for both the Zimmerman and Martin families.

[Denzien]

I'm not trying to be hard on anyone, Cent. I'm trying to participate in a serious discussion - I sometimes mix in some levity, but that's generally reserved for other threads (see the Random Picture Thread)


I don't neg-rep posts that contribute to a discussion. I also can't neg-rep more than once, so if you're ****** off or confused that your sarcasm posts are not well received, you have only yourself to look at. I get plenty of neg-rep here for posts that I feel are (generally) well-thought out and add a voice to the discussion. Maybe I'm wrong, but it is what it is. Not all of my posts here are good.


However you meant them, your sarcastic posts did not come off as "lightening the mood", but more as unwarranted condescension toward me and a point I was trying to make. Instead you play off my posts as being some kind of trap without even explaining why you think that, disregard them and then cease to add to the dialog while playing coy. Why is that?

[SpinalTarp]

Originally Posted by Denzien

Provide a citation for this, please. I've heard numerous characterizations of this and would like to see the source of your belief that this is true.

How about this portion of the 911 call:

7:11:56: Dispatcher: Are you following him?
7:11:59: Zimmerman: Yeah
7:12:00: Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.

This is ambiguous language on the dispatcher's part, but none the less an indication that he does not need leave his vehicle to pursue Martin.

Near the end of the call:

7:13:14: Dispatcher: Okay do you want to just meet with them right near the mailboxes then?
7:12:16: Zimmerman: Yeah that's fine.
7:12 Dispatcher: Alright George, I'll let them know to meet you around there okay?
7:13:21: Zimmerman: Actually could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at?
7:13:23: Dispatcher: Okay, yeah that's no problem.
7:13:27: Zimmerman: Should I give you my number or you got it?
7:13:30 Dispatcher: Yeah I got it [redacted]
7:13:33: Zimmerman: Yeah you got it.
7:13:34: Dispatcher: Okay no problem, I'll let them know to call you when you're in the area.
7:13:36 Zimmerman: Thanks.

If the conversation ended with Zimmerman agreeing to meet the officers at the mailbox, then Zimmerman's statement that Martin attacked him when he decided to end the pursuit and was walking back to his truck seems more probable. Instead, he makes the decision to have the police find him. If Zimmerman was content with letting the Police handle the situation, why wouldn't he just agree to meet them at the mailbox? He was advised to stay put and he decided to pursue further. He was told to meet the officers and, again, he decided to pursue further.

From this point on there is no evidence as to who initiated the fight beyond Zimmerman's own statement. At no point before this lack of evidence was Martin the aggressor, yet it's Zimmerman who is given the benefit of the doubt.

On a side note: Has there been any information about where Zimmerman's gun was holstered and whether or not it was visible to Martin before the fight?


*those are some unfortunate smilies that resulted from some copy and pasting.

[NYCsaint]

Originally Posted by SpinalTarp

How about this portion of the 911 call:

7:11:56: Dispatcher: Are you following him?
7:11:59: Zimmerman: Yeah
7:12:00: Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.

This is ambiguous language on the dispatcher's part, but none the less an indication that he does not need leave his vehicle to pursue Martin.

Near the end of the call:

7:13:14: Dispatcher: Okay do you want to just meet with them right near the mailboxes then?
7:12:16: Zimmerman: Yeah that's fine.
7:12 Dispatcher: Alright George, I'll let them know to meet you around there okay?
7:13:21: Zimmerman: Actually could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at?
7:13:23: Dispatcher: Okay, yeah that's no problem.
7:13:27: Zimmerman: Should I give you my number or you got it?
7:13:30 Dispatcher: Yeah I got it [redacted]
7:13:33: Zimmerman: Yeah you got it.
7:13:34: Dispatcher: Okay no problem, I'll let them know to call you when you're in the area.
7:13:36 Zimmerman: Thanks.

If the conversation ended with Zimmerman agreeing to meet the officers at the mailbox, then Zimmerman's statement that Martin attacked him when he decided to end the pursuit and was walking back to his truck seems more probable. Instead, he makes the decision to have the police find him. If Zimmerman was content with letting the Police handle the situation, why wouldn't he just agree to meet them at the mailbox? He was advised to stay put and he decided to pursue further. He was told to meet the officers and, again, he decided to pursue further.

From this point on there is no evidence as to who initiated the fight beyond Zimmerman's own statement. At no point before this lack of evidence was Martin the aggressor, yet it's Zimmerman who is given the benefit of the doubt.

On a side note: Has there been any information about where Zimmerman's gun was holstered and whether or not it was visible to Martin before the fight?


*those are some unfortunate smilies that resulted from some copy and pasting.

i think weve all heard that portion, and more so what he was getting at were two facts

1)the dispatcher is not a police officer
2)"you do not need to do that" is not an order

so when someone asserts that a police officer ordered him, its just not true.


what happened was a 911 operator giving him instruction that essentially amounted to "hey, go for it, but dont sue me if something happens" (though i know thats a bit over simplified)

order: I need you to stop following him now.
suggestion: you should probably stop following him
absolving from legal liability: you do not have to keep following him

[CentMSSaint]

Not dodging your comments, Den. Just choosing not to sling mud. I'll comment when I feel a need to respond. And for the record, I never once thought any of your comments were not well-thought, emotional, or unbiased. I give you the benefit of the doubt. So I would appreciate if you would do the same for me. Emotion is not involved in what I think and comment. Just looking at both sides and giving an opinion. Nothing more. At the end of the day, this is just a discussion about a hot-button topic. Nothing more.

[CentMSSaint]

NCSaint and Denzien, i'm just gonna ask straight out. Do you think Zimmerman should face charges, and if not why? Because I think the majority on here think that you feel he did nothing wrong and there was nothing wrong with him killing that kid. I may be wrong.

[Det. Brees]

Originally Posted by CentMSSaint

NCSaint and Denzien, i'm just gonna ask straight out. Do you think Zimmerman should face charges, and if not why? Because I think the majority on here think that you feel he did nothing wrong and there was nothing wrong with him killing that kid. I may be wrong.

I think he should face charges, We have a system in place for the self defence stance and for the most part it works. There are too many unanswered questions for charges to not be broughts. Also, I beleive that Murder Two is a stretch and i think it looks like a head hunting expedition but I dont know all the facts.

[Denzien]

It's a qualified yes, and it's been stated many times. If Martin initiated the physical attack on Zimmerman and Zimmerman felt that his life was in danger (a concrete walking path qualifies as a deadly weapon), then he was justified in the shooting.

Even if he was legally in the right in the shooting (self-defense), if Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation by shoving or grabbing, then I have a hard time accepting his acquittal.


Based on the evidence we have, I simply don't believe that Zimmerman attempted to grab Martin or push Martin in any way. That leaves me believing that Martin initiated the physical confrontation.

[Denzien]

Originally Posted by SpinalTarp

On a side note: Has there been any information about where Zimmerman's gun was holstered and whether or not it was visible to Martin before the fight?

I'd like to know this as well

[NYCsaint]

Originally Posted by CentMSSaint

NCSaint and Denzien, i'm just gonna ask straight out. Do you think Zimmerman should face charges, and if not why? Because I think the majority on here think that you feel he did nothing wrong and there was nothing wrong with him killing that kid. I may be wrong.

I feel like we have each answered that repeatedly. I wont pretend to know the ins and outs of the florida legal system to determine what the proper legal process from day 1 to the end game is supposed to be, but my gut/moral/logical approach based on what we know so far is that he probably should face trial. I think he made several mistakes over the course of the night but i dont know that any of them were criminal. there is a difference between him not doing anything wrong, and him being at fault for a criminal offense. As Denzien has stated a bit more extensively than I have, I think from what i have been presented so far that the spark in all this is whoever initiated contact (as a general rule of thumb that might not apply over 100% of the possible permutations of events), and my gut reaction if asked to choose one way or the other is that TM was likely the one that escalated the event from oddball neighborhood watch to assualt. Just following a kid doesnt give anyone the right to assualt GZ. Its totally possible that GZ initiated, but its just not what my gut is telling me based on what i have seen and heard so far (accuracy of those things being questionable, of course). id hate to be on a jury and have to make a definitive statement on this case and this mans future.

Ideally a trial would provide the most even handed and factual look at the events of the night - although we clearly do not live in a perfect world with a perfect system. In pursuit of that "best answer" or "justice" or "truth" I think that is the right direction to go at this point. I also think that the murder 2 charge is absurd, unless there is something that we dont know.

[Denzien]

Originally Posted by NYCsaint

I also think that the murder 2 charge is absurd, unless there is something that we dont know.

Did you read the filing? It's paper-thin on evidence and excludes all of the known exculpatory evidence required for such a filing. Murder 2 is way over-reaching. Zimmerman had no intention of killing Martin - that much I am sure of.

[CentMSSaint]

Originally Posted by NYCsaint

I feel like we have each answered that repeatedly. I wont pretend to know the ins and outs of the florida legal system to determine what the proper legal process from day 1 to the end game is supposed to be, but my gut/moral/logical approach based on what we know so far is that he probably should face trial. I think he made several mistakes over the course of the night but i dont know that any of them were criminal. there is a difference between him not doing anything wrong, and him being at fault for a criminal offense. As Denzien has stated a bit more extensively than I have, I think from what i have been presented so far that the spark in all this is whoever initiated contact (as a general rule of thumb that might not apply over 100% of the possible permutations of events), and my gut reaction if asked to choose one way or the other is that TM was likely the one that escalated the event from oddball neighborhood watch to assualt. Just following a kid doesnt give anyone the right to assualt GZ. Its totally possible that GZ initiated, but its just not what my gut is telling me based on what i have seen and heard so far (accuracy of those things being questionable, of course). id hate to be on a jury and have to make a definitive statement on this case and this mans future.

Ideally a trial would provide the most even handed and factual look at the events of the night - although we clearly do not live in a perfect world with a perfect system. In pursuit of that "best answer" or "justice" or "truth" I think that is the right direction to go at this point. I also think that the murder 2 charge is absurd, unless there is something that we dont know.

Thanks to the both of you for responding. I agree with the both of you on this, except for the "spark". I just feel that that began with Zimmerman. Although, as you both stated, his actions individually were not criminal in and of themselves, they did cummulatively (sp) lead to an unfortunate loss of life. Both he and Trayvon may well be at fault in some way or another. Only the two of them know the true facts. Unfortunately, one is no longer here, and the other is already guilty in the court of public opinion, possibly. Thank God that court doesn't matter. I also agree that M2 is harsh and negligent homicide or manslaughter is the relevent charge here. Here's to true justice prevailing.

[NYCsaint]

Originally Posted by CentMSSaint

Thanks to the both of you for responding. I agree with the both of you on this, except for the "spark". I just feel that that began with Zimmerman. Although, as you both stated, his actions individually were not criminal in and of themselves, they did cummulatively (sp) lead to an unfortunate loss of life. Both he and Trayvon may well be at fault in some way or another. Only the two of them know the true facts. Unfortunately, one is no longer here, and the other is already guilty in the court of public opinion, possibly. Thank God that court doesn't matter. I also agree that M2 is harsh and negligent homicide or manslaughter is the relevent charge here. Here's to true justice prevailing.

to speak to the "spark" comment - its tough but in my judgement following someone, even if he got out of his car - IF he was attacked, his behavior did not justify violent action against him. it might not have been smart, or what you or i would do, but simply carrying a legal weapon while following someone doesnt raise me to the standard of criminal. like ive said repeatedly, im no law expert, especially in the state of florida, so that is primarily an initial and amatuer reaction.

sure GZ might have had some weird behavior, and its not what you or i are trying to do with our free time, it doesnt even really qualify as aggressive just to be keeping tabs on (perhaps not really passive either though).

and walking down that train of thought, for me whoever brought it from odd neighbor watching a kid he wasnt sure about, to fist fight in the street is likely the one that needs answer for their actions most(not that it makes it something happy for either side to celebrate) - honestly it certainly is both that could have prevented it, and both may have had questionable illegal choices along the way too.

[SpinalTarp]

Originally Posted by NYCsaint

i think weve all heard that portion, and more so what he was getting at were two facts

1)the dispatcher is not a police officer
2)"you do not need to do that" is not an order

so when someone asserts that a police officer ordered him, its just not true.


what happened was a 911 operator giving him instruction that essentially amounted to "hey, go for it, but dont sue me if something happens" (though i know thats a bit over simplified)

order: I need you to stop following him now.
suggestion: you should probably stop following him
absolving from legal liability: you do not have to keep following him

The dispatcher's language was ambiguous, but he still gave Zimmerman two opportunities to end his pursuit. Both times he continues on, yet his defense is that Trayvon attacked him while he was walking back to his car. Nothig about Zimmerman's actions up until this point signal any kind of retreat, yet in this same amount of time (roughly 4 minutes) the Zimmerman defense asks us to believe Trayvon went from running away to attacking Zimmerman with enough force to kill him.

[Denzien]

Originally Posted by SpinalTarp

...attacking Zimmerman with enough force to kill him.

Well didn't he?


I remember when this thing first broke, people were denying that Zimmerman was even injured. It was the crux of their defense of Martin. Then the police video from the precinct was released and they said, "See! He's not even injured!" Then the video was enhanced to show his injuries. Many still denied that they even existed and claimed that they couldn't see anything and kept denouncing myself and others. Then the iPhone photo was released and they started saying, "Okay, well he IS injured, but it's barely a scratch!" Now with more photos and testimony it's, "Okay - his nose may have been broken after all, and he has bruises and cuts on his head just like he claimed...but he still started it by following Martin in the first place; it's his own fault he got beaten up, he should have just taken his beating like a man and kept the gun out of it!"

I swear, this thread gets really frustrating.