Slashdot Mirror
Forensic Experts Say Screams Were Not Zimmerman's
Hugh Pickens writes "As the Trayvon Martin controversy splinters into a debate about self-defense, a central question remains: Who was heard crying for help on a 911 call in the moments before the teen was shot? Now the Orlando Sentinel reports that Tom Owen, a leading expert in the field of forensic voice identification sought to answer that question by analyzing the recordings. His result: It was not George Zimmerman who called for help. Owen, forensic consultant for Owen Forensic Services LLC and chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence, used voice identification software to rule out Zimmerman. Another expert contacted by the Sentinel, utilizing different techniques, came to the same conclusion. Owen used software called Easy Voice Biometrics to compare Zimmerman's voice to the 911 call screams. 'I took all of the screams and put those together, and cut out everything else,' says Owen. The software compared that audio to Zimmerman's voice and returned a 48 percent match. Owen says to reach a positive match with audio of this quality, he'd expect higher than 90 percent. Owen cannot confirm the voice as Trayvon's, because he didn't have a sample of the teen's voice to compare however 'you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it's not Zimmerman.'"
Zimmerman's claim of being badly beaten up before he shot the kid doesn't hold up either: there's some footage taken at the police station the night of his arrest, and he looks totally unharmed. No cuts to the back of the head, no broken nose, nothing. Guy's story has more holes than... eh, I'm on my eighteenth hour without sleep due to a project and can't come up with an apt metaphor, but something with a lot of holes.
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
I know that /. is US-centric but wtf is going on? Some guy used a piece of software?
IANAL but it's my understanding only what is admissible to a grand jury or in a court of law is relevant. Otherwise it is hearsay.
At least he's done more then the police have done in this case.
Really? Slashdot has frequent coverage of human rights, crime, law enforcement. Technology alone isn't the only subject Slashdot readers are interested in. It just so happens that technology and forensics do play a role in this story. However even if they didn't, this is a huge story, and well worth covering on Slashdot.
Has this software been subjected to repeated double-blind testing? Otherwise, there's no point in reporting this.
While I'm personally of the opinion that Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, I've also seen too many cases of "forensic science" of dubious validity being allowed in trials (for example Steven Hayne in Mississippi help convict dozens of people on the base of 'bite mark identification' techniques that are widely considered fraudulent). Can anyone point to any independent blind trials to demonstrate 1) that the metrics used by this program actually are invariant for a particular individual and 2) are sufficiently unique that they can be used to reliably distinguish two individuals?
I'm more concerned that someone under the presumption of innocence is instead being tried in the court of public opinion, which obeys no law and follows no procedure. Regardless of the facts of the matter, I would almost rather have my day in court and be acquitted than have my life torn to pieces in a three-ring media circus.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
... and George just shot him in "self defense"?
Sounds like cold blooded murder, not self defense.
Who is shooting an armless scared teen?
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
all the actual techies have left and been replaced with libertarian trolls.
Huh? I remember way back when quoting Ayn Rand on Slashdot was a sure ticket to +5 Insightful. And you say that Slashdot is infested with libertarian trolls now?
"Too soon" doesn't and has never made any sense.
If only the guy who shot another person without witnesses would have been actually *investigated*, instead of letting him walk entirely on his own testimony...
I think I've heard of Jenna Jameson, but I'm not sure...
Is that the old broad?
Isn't it fair to assume the expert is using the publicly available samples? IIRC one of the experts in the Sentinel article suggested that the difference between the two samples (sound and screaming vs. being relatively calm) doesn't matter. Can someone explain more technically why it wouldn't matter? At the very least, doesn't interference and other factors come into play with the recording taken at a distance, i.e., the one where is screaming.
Was they located the ever elusive "white Hispanic." Not only are they using reputable software such as "Easy Bake Oven Biometrics" to prove that he did it, they were also able to make him of an entirely new race! Lets make sure we turn this into a race war as soon as possible!
Who is shooting an armless scared teen?
He shot a handicap? Or did you mean unarmed?
brandelf -t FreeBSD
..judging by the amateurish, information-devoid website and release date less than one month ago.
I agree, he shouldn't be facing the court of public opinion. He should be facing the court of law. It certainly doesn't look like that is happening.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
I'd be very, very leery of trying to do any sort of "voice print analysis" on the basis of recorded cellphone audio. There's a lot of coding artifacts. After all, the goal is to allow people to communicate, not to convey voice identity.
You can run voice through a fairly low bit rate LPC coder and it's quite intelligible on the other end, and actually "sounds" like the speaker, but if you look at the spectrogram, it's totally different. Your ear hears the dominant formants in the vowels, and you recognize speakers by that. LPC basically encodes the vocal tract as a 8-10 term filter plus a buzz excitation source. "voice print id" depends more on fine structure, which is lost in the encoding/decoding. It would be like trying to identify a paper document that was watermarked by looking at a photocopy. The watermark may or may not come through, but the intelligibility of the document is the same either way.
Hey! If hearsay is good enough to 'convict' bin Laden and Hussien, it's good enough for me...
It's not a question of guilt or innocence, Zimmerman is guilty of shooting and killing Trayvon Martin. That is not in question at all. The question is whether he was legally justified in doing so. Unfortunately, one side of the story (Trayvon) has been removed and cannot be heard.
A human being *died*. A young man was shot and killed while bearing only a can of iced tea and a bag of skittles. An investigation of more than simply accepting the word of the shooter is definitely warranted.
"Trial by social media". "Trial by the self-righteous" Glad we have court systems to sort out all these rumors.
The District Attorney has an obligation to not bring cases he can't win. It took 1.5 years to arrest Michael Jackson's doctor, let investigators do their job.
Easy Voice Biometrics
If it was based on psuedo-science it would have another name. Something like, Crystal Voice Biometrics, or Sonic Wave Biomagnetics.
The fact that the DA's office is standing on a ludicrous interpretation of the stand your ground law as an excuse to not press charges even though the well established facts of the case practically demand a trial.
Just to add insult, a bunch of people actually believe the crap excuse and so are campaigning to repeal stand your ground rather than finding out why the DA hates black people (or loves Zimmerman).
So it's a media circus. Since the time Martin died, far more people have also died or have been killed. Chalk one up for media bias. Not just the media, but his parents and President Obama are exploiting his death. Just another symptom of the US' decline.
Even if Zimmerman was the one screaming
He followed and confronted someone for no good reason, even after having been explicitly told (by 911 operator) to stay away
Even if Zimmeriman screamed through the whole process, the killing of Trayvon is not justified.
When law enforcement authorities refuse to press charges against a known killer, the only thing left IS the court of public opinion. It's not like George Zimmerman can throw himself into court without personally confessing details that would make him chargeable.
The worst part about this is that the DA office doesn't seem to understand that "Stand Your Ground" is just an affirmative defense against a crime, not a magic spell that means someone can't be arrested.
Except that there are some facts here.
1) "Neighbourhood watch" personnel know that they are not supposed to be armed
2) They are warned not to engage, lest they risk legal repercussions. They are to call the police.
3) Zimmerman was specifically told to stand down in this case by a police dispatcher.
That's the only "opinion" I need to have. Zimmerman needs to be charged, just like he would be if he shot some rich white kid.
I thought that comedy = subjective. I had no idea that everyone had the same sense of humor.
I agree, he shouldn't be facing the court of public opinion. He should be facing the court of law. It certainly doesn't look like that is happening.
It looks increasingly likely that he will face a jury. And when he does, the jury will likely be informed of Fla. Stats. 776.041, which states:
776.041âfUse of force by aggressor.â"The justification [of self defense] described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1)âfIs attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2)âfInitially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)âfSuch force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)âfIn good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
To be brutally honest, I think both his attackers and his defenders sound very silly to me in making bold statements before the facts are in. The prudent thing to do is to simply say that we are not going to condemn him or exonerate him until the process plays out and renders a verdict.
[ Note, I'm not saying that everyone must accept the results of the process -- just because it's the legal result doesn't mean we have to personally believe it. But there is a difference between disagreeing with the result after it happens and jumping to your own conclusion before it has been conducted. The former seems to me reasonable, the latter not so much. ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2hS_LhslTw&feature=related
1944 - Too soon. 1967 (when it was written), not too soon.
History softens the blow for certain types of events, to the point where it's not considered bad taste to make a joke about it. While tragic events are still fresh in memory, they need to be treated with a certain amount of dignity and respect. It's about social decorum... while that's a construct, it's one that still has value in social interactions.
BTW, with this particular example, does Godwin's law say I lose?
I think the DA would be doing Zimmerman a favor if they tried him now. It'd take the heat off, the evidence could get presented, he'd be exonerated in court and this shit would be over. As it is he's going to be stalked by the media the rest of his life.
Or a woman.
There aren't "well established facts" in this case. At least not that are known to the general public. Cases tried in the media tend to be enormously biased because they are about generating interest not about reliable evidence. For instance, was Zimmerman's nose broken and the back of his head injured or not? We don't know but such evidence would obviously make a big difference in the case.
The revelation that a kel-tec really is a more effective weapon than a bag of skittles is fairly noteworthy.
I agree.
Is it self defence if I am breaking into someone's else home, they grab a knife and "attack" me and I shoot them as I fear for my life?
Clearly no. The homeowner has the right to defend themselves from the instigator.
Is it self defence if I stalk someone walking down the road and they "attack" me and I shoot them as I fear for my life?
Or let's ask it backwards.
If I am walking down the street minding my own business and I am followed and stalked by another are they allowed to kill me when I defend myself?
EVEN if Zimmerman found himself defending himself he should still be investigated as evidence indicates that he is defending himself from an event he initiated.
Trayvon, per mobile conversation with his girlfriend:
""He says: 'Oh, he's right behind me. He's right behind me again,'" Crump said the girl told him. "She says: 'Run.' He says: 'I'm not going to run, I'm just going to walk fast.'
She then heard Martin saying "Why are you following me""
Florida stalking law arguably shows that Trayvon was being stalked. Easily as arguable as the "stand your ground" arguement. And that would mean that he was killed by someone in the commision of a crime.
"FLORIDA
Section 784.048. STALKING; DEFINITIONS; PENALTIES. 1997.
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern a conduct composed of series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.
(c) "Credible threat" means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person."
Welcome to ...well United States politics. Our papers and news media have been doing this since the beginning, even before. The only thing that changed is the official presumption of innocence.
You forget that the trial will be held in the county he resides in. Not LA or New York or any other bastion of liberal thought and policy. In this county I assure you the majority of Home Owners and Employed Taxpayers who make up the majority of the jury pool will decide and not Al Sharpton nor any members of the New York Times staff. Given this fact I'd bet his peers, who are fed up with thugs wanderning around in the wee hours of the night seeking what they can take will be much more likely to understand what was going through Zimmerman's mind than you are. I'd bet money that he would walk.
This is not a huge story. The Treyvon Martin story is a huge story.
I think people get a little cranky about shoehorning hot-button issues onto slashdot, for the fight, by using less-than-suitable tech stories. What's "suitable" in the first place, of course, is entirely debatable.
The police could use their time-honored tactic of arresting you for resisting arrest to bring him in anytime.
Beautiful, absolutely marvelous.
Erm, the case *is* being investigated. For one thing, he was taken into custody for questioning the night of the incident. I also believe that local officials actually tried to present this case to a prosecutor and was denied due to lack of evidence. Now work is being done to present this case to a grand jury. How can you say that there is no investigation?
It's amazing how much misinformation is being spread out there that is fueling a lot of pointless emotions.
It's because Zimmerman's father is a former judge.
That's a fact.
They're using their grammar skills there.
they need to be treated with a certain amount of dignity and respect.
I don't seem to have that problem. Everything about this issue seems arbitrary. People can pointlessly get angry at me all they like, I suppose. No one ever said that most people were logical.
Just for the record, there was an eyewitness who witnessed part of the altercation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RaknmTkjvU
One aspect that seems to have been ignored by everyone is that this happened in a gated community. I used to live in a gated community in Phoenix and the only way in or out was past a guard shack. Did the Martins live in the gated community? If not how did Travon Martin happen to be walking down the street? If his family did live there how come the community watch group was unaware that he was a resident. Something does not make sense.
Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
If a cop murders a kid (unarmed, in the back, running away, etc) everybody says
A He/She feared for their lives/safety
B He/She was only doing their job
C They were resisting
D Oops!
And the cop get's a few days off with pay!
It's a good thing that this retard Zimmerman isn't a cop, maybe he'll get prosecuted!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
Thank goodness, some actual common sense. Seriously.
Also, if this had happened to a white kid, would the media be on this at all? Maybe? How about you? Does reverse racism somehow affect your attitude here? If so, then you're as bad or worse that who you are accusing.
How about we wait until all the facts are in, and make our own decisions, rather than the attitude of the Black Panthers, and mod rule.
The authorities don't press charges unless they believe they have a reasonable case to proceed on. The police can't just arrest because "just because". Sometimes the price of due process and defense of civil rights includes letting possible criminals walk free for a while while the authorities do their job behind the scenes to build up a more solid case.
Instead of misdirecting your rage at the local officers, you should be looking at the SYG laws that put a heavy burden of proof on the prosecution to prove that people like Zimmerman did not legitimately defend themselves under the SYG law. That's why he's walking free today - Zimmerman can simply say that the event happened a certain way and with no opposition witnesses and of course, no Trayvon Martin, there was no immediate basis to claim he was wrong.
The authorities *are* putting together a grand jury where all the known facts will be evaluated and a case will be opened if the grand jury believes there is sufficient evidence to proceed.
We have an unarmed victim, making the supposed deadly threat unlikely. That would mean Zimmerman shot him without a credible fear for his life. We have evidence that the victim was attempting to retreat (evenm though not obligated to do so) which further suggests there was no threat to Zimmerman's life. Of the two people there, one of them who was not Zimmerman was screaming for help. Again, that makes the claim that Zimmerman was reasonably fearful for his life look rather weak.
It's not SYG at all.
I'm more concerned that someone under the presumption of innocence is instead being tried in the court of public opinion
I don't feel compelled to presume Zimmerman's innocence before he's been charged with a crime.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Given the firestorm over all of this, it seems unlikely that the DA would hide evidence that his office made the right call.
(1) Citation needed. Not aware of Florida law in particular, but Zimmerman was licensed to use his firearm. Further, 'neighborhood watch' programs are not regulated in any capacity that I'm aware of - they are simply just bands of civilians who have to follow the same laws that individual civilians do. He is permitted to carry his firearm as a civilian regardless of whether or not he's doing it under the auspices of a 'neighborhood watch' program that the government makes no special deference to.
(2) This is common sense that Zimmerman should have followed. It's not a legal commandment, however.
(3) The suggestions of the 911 dispatcher are not legally binding in any way. 911 dispatchers are not officers of the law, nor does the 911 dispatcher really have full situational awareness of what is going on.
The presumption of innocence under U.S. law is pretty limited. All it means is that the prosecution has the burden of proof in order to convict you.
For example, if you can't pay bail, there's no presumption of innocence. The judge can keep you in jail even though you've never been convicted of anything.
The issue here is that the cops weren't seriously investigating Zimmerman, and that they've failed to prosecute people in the past who killed black victims.
It didn't look like Zimmerman and his accusers would ever have their day in court -- until they went to the media. That's an appropriate role of the media.
BTW there's nothing about "presumption of innocence in the Constitution.
I'd bet money too. But not my life.
There are two problems with this argument -
(1) He was treated by EMTs before being brought into custody. This is standard procedure - the cops don't want a suspect dribbling blood all over their police station and moaning in pain while trying to piece together events.
(2) A higher resolution video has been released that seems to show evidence of injuries: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/03/31/New-Hi-Def-Vid. (You may disagree with Breitbart, but the video is relevant regardless of who posts it).
Help me out here... in legal terms, does 'it seems unlikely' more closely match probable cause, preponderance of evidence or proof beyond a reasonable doubt? I'm tired this morning and can't judge...
Yes, but the problem is that every time a white guy kills a black guy in Florida, the district attorney decides he can't win the case.
Really?
From Florida Statute 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force
"(1) A person who uses force as permitted in 776.012 [Use of force in defense of person] is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force..."
"(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful."
Sure sounds like they can't be arrested to me.
I don't really know how it works in Florida, but in most of the world if someone is stalking you that does not give you the right to attack him, and if you do attack him, and the person finds his physical integrity threatened it is justifiable for him to use proportional force against you.
Zimmerman was a ranking member of the "neighborhood watch", and should eligible for a kind of "sovereign immunity" like cops have when they blast away at unarmed "threats".
We have an unarmed victim, making the supposed deadly threat unlikely. That would mean Zimmerman shot him without a credible fear for his life
Martin was a well-built athlete. Zimmerman, not so much. If Martin started a fight, it's highly probable that he didn't know Zimmerman was armed.
If Martin sucker-punched Zimmerman and started beating on him before Zimmerman brandished a weapon, then that makes it a legitimate use-case of SYG.
(Please note that I am prefacing these statements with 'if' since we do not know for certain. I am merely presenting a case where SYG could legitimately be used and argued for)
We have evidence that the victim was attempting to retreat (evenm though not obligated to do so) which further suggests there was no threat to Zimmerman's life
No. The evidence we have shows that Martin was being followed by Zimmerman for the purposes of surveillance (911 call about a suspicious person by Zimmerman), not that Zimmerman was pursuing Martin with a weapon drawn or the threat of violence.
Again, that makes the claim that Zimmerman was reasonably fearful for his life look rather weak.
You seem to be proceeding on the basis of faulty information.
Do you think the court should have any evidence to consider, or should it rule based only on the mobs chants and signs? If you think it should have evidence, then the investigations need to be completed first, and they aren't.
The normal flow is: incident -> investigation -> evidence -> prosecutors decision -> court -> trial -> verdict & (if guilty then punishment)
Right now we are still in the investigation stage and people are already calling for trials and punishment.
I like your statement, "It certainly doesn't look like that is happening." Based on what? It's hard to miss the news on this if you actually look.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
So have I. I refer back to my original post.
And the videos also show blurry hands where fingers should be. Does that mean they don't exist?
Lossy blurry compressed video is lossy and blurry.
I think what the outrage is that if It was a black man that shot a white guy the black man would be still in jail probably under the jail. I think the fact that he is walking free during all of this outrages people.
There is an eye witness that contradicts your statements. Do you have a source?
Trayvon Martin Shooter Told Cops Teenager Went For His Gun
In addition, an eyewitness, 13-year-old Austin Brown, told police he saw a man fitting Zimmerman's description lying on the grass moaning and crying for help just seconds before he heard the gunshot that killed Martin.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Generally a DA will NEVER divulge information during an ongoing investigation. Doing so would cause all sorts of problems with sources etc.
"...unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful"
Probable cause is the standard for making an arrest in any case. Police routinely cite it with weaker justification than in this case, one which offers ample basis for a probable-cause arrest. Y'know... if they wanted to.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
None of those three items are laws, the breaking of which would be chargeable offenses. Carrying the gun was legal, as was observing someone in public (or a private neighborhood which Zimmerman was responsible for securing). If Martin attacked him, he was the first and only person who broke a law.
God I hope you are joking. A neighborhood watch is simply that a watch (mostly just a deterrent represented by signs) for what is going on. It doesn't mean you have active individual who drives around and patrols the area armed with a sidearm. You see something you report it to the police.
And from my understanding the kid who was shot lived in this neighborhood with his father, so Zimmerman shot someone he was suppose to be protecting.
After the Richard Jewel case I don't get into rush to judgement any more.
However the initial response of the police to let Zimmerman walk without a real investigation deserves a whole lot of criticism. Now we are getting the investigation so hopefully the facts will become evident.
Duh!
How accurate is biometric voice analysis when the person was under physical/mental stress at the time of recording? (Honest question, I really don't know.)
The revelation that pounding the human head against concrete can kill is fairly noteworthy . . . . and news to you?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
An apartment complex with a fence facing the street but not the woods adjacent.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
That would be probable cause.
They were talkative enough about not being able to charge him due to stand your ground. That is, exactly the sort of thing a DA wouldn't say if they intended to even look into the matter.
an unarmed 17 year old kid was shot and killed. You can't claim self defence when you are chasing someone down and you have a lethal weapon on your person. Why the police ever let him go is truly mind boggling. How could anyone take the story of the person who did the killing seriously?
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
Perhaps you might want to do some research on "The Retreat at Twin Lakes" which has no guard shack, just gates for vehicle access. It had security cameras, but no guards.
And Trayvon Martin was visiting with his father's fiance who lived in the community, so if they had a key or passcode, or anything else for the pedestrian access, it's completely reasonable for her to receive them. Even if there were guards, he'd have been passed by them.
She was really cute once. Dig up the first time she was on Howard Stern. It made her.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Actually, we do know that his nose wasn't broken. He had no injuries at the police station, nor was his light shirt covered in blood, which would be expected from someone with a broken nose.
Lets just suspend our opinions until the trial please. I have no idea what happened here and neither does anyone else.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
And from my understanding the kid who was shot lived in this neighborhood with his father, so Zimmerman shot someone he was suppose to be protecting.
Actually, he was with his father who was visiting his fiance. She lived in the neighborhood.
Still doesn't discount what you're saying, though. Even though they didn't live there themselves, they were guests of someone that did.
Obviously authorized visitors should be issued picture ID badges in Neighborhood Watch Communities.
Was they located the ever elusive "white Hispanic."
These guys are not the first to apply that label to the shooter. Zimmerman identifies himself as "white hispanic" on his voting registration. Some of the very early news coverage - that came out over a month ago, just after the shooting - also used that label.
In other words, the concept of "white hispanic" is not new here. Not sure what planet you've been hanging out on lately but we've been using this term since this crime was first reported, and it has been a standard part of the language for some time.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
If someone shoots an unarmed person, until they have been cleared by a court of law, they should be behind bars.
Is that difficult to understand?
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
I struggled for a moment, trying to figure out how this story could be argued as "news for nerds"
I thought Skittles powered the internet. Isn't that what they put in Cisco gear? Isn't that what makes 'em so expensive?
There's no place like
Do we know that? Based on a random low-quality video, in which there actually *is* evidence of an injury on the back of his head?
actually, we do know that he was treated by paramedics at the scene for those injuries, and he was wearing a jacket prior to the video shown without him wearing it.
Easy to understand, but an incredibly stupid (and wrong) statement.
The eye witness said it was too dark for him to know who was on the ground even in broad terms. Hios mother claims he was pressured by police to give the report they wanted to hear.
There are plenty of questions swirling around this. I don't claim Zimmerman is guilty (I wasn't there and there's too much conflicting information at the moment), I claim that given all of this, the DA has shown remarkably little interest in further investigation.
Note that the events reported in your link are perfectly consistent with Martin feeling threatened by a man who was following him around who had a gun. If he did feel threatened, then he would be perfectly justified in making a grab for the gun and for issuing a beat down. When you approach someone with a deadly weapon, you are the party creating a reasonable fear for safety.
The weird thing I don't get about the "stand your ground" law in this case is how it can apply to both people. By his own account, Zimmerman was chasing Martin. Zimmerman was armed with a gun and was not in a marked security vehicle or wearing any sort of uniform, nor did he identify himself in any way as being part of the neighborhood watch. If Zimmerman had never shot Martin, but Martin had been arrested for attacking Zimmerman (and I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm just looking at Zimmerman's claimed version of events), then "stand your ground" should have been a viable defense for him. He was the one in fear for his life being chased by a suspicious stranger armed with a gun.
Everything that's been revealed about Zimmerman seems to show that he's basically a hyper-aggressive Gladys Kravitz with a gun. In the past he'd called 911 to report suspicious 7-9 year old black males, kids playing in the street, and, apparently, his landlord demanding the rent money. He forced this situation and someone else ended up dead. He's clearly at least guilty of manslaughter.
A "self appointed" Neighborhood Watch snitch engaged his quarry after being "advised" not to. They are also "advised" not to carry guns. Spin your words however you like.
If they don't do as "advised" they can be subject to prosecution for their actions because they do not have police powers of authority.
If you need citations, then by golly, you go and look it up. It's not my prerogative to make you believe me. I did my reading.
Actually, apparently Zimmerman's arrest in 2005 was specifically for resisting arrest (and assaulting a police officer, but that probably came after the police officer started arresting him for resisting arrest). That was during a domestic crisis situation.
Yes, I'm sure there are. But are there laws that stop the police from arresting you just because you hunted someone down and then shot them after you caught up with them?
You do know that there was at least one eyewitness that corroborated that Zimmerman was on the ground being attacked and calling for help?
You do know there are other eyewitnesses who claimed that was not the case? That's your probable cause right there.
Is it self defence if I am breaking into someone's else home, they grab a knife and "attack" me and I shoot them as I fear for my life?
Clearly no. The homeowner has the right to defend themselves from the instigator.
You don't specify whether the burglar is being violent with the homeowner.
If the burglar surrenders or is running away at the time, what is the homeowner defending?
The thing is, even if Zimmerman's nose was broken, the back of his head injured, etc. (which they do not appear to have been at the time), his own version of the events should be enough for a manslaughter charge. He hunted the boy down, forcing a confrontation, then shot him. The exact nature of the confrontation is what's in dispute and should determine if he's charged with manslaughter or murder, but he should still be charged with at least manslaughter. He was an armed man chasing down a high school kid for no reason. If Martin had managed to sneak up behind him and club him to death with his can of iced tea, then Martin shouldn't be charged with a crime based on the "stand your ground" principle since he was the one being chased by a man with a gun.
(Please note that I am prefacing these statements with 'if' since we do not know for certain. I am merely presenting a case where SYG could legitimately be used and argued for)
That's precisely the point - we don't know for certain. Evidence is seemingly contradictory, and witnesses are claiming different things. At this point, a proper trial is needed to decide on the facts of the case, and Zimmerman can then claim SYG as an affirmative defense during that trial and walk free, if the facts do indeed support his case.
I also believe that local officials actually tried to present this case to a prosecutor and was denied due to lack of evidence.
A dead body is "lack of evidence"?
Coupled with contradictory claims by eyewitnesses, I don't see how it's not sufficient grounds for further investigation.
776.032 is moot, since 776.041 takes precedence.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
As someone who has actually worked with phrase independent speaker identification software, I can tell you it isn't bullshit, but I'd point to a number of limitations I already referred to in previous posts that make me skeptical of the conclusion made in this instance.
Where is it documented that Martin was a well-built athlete? He was certainly taller than Zimmerman, but the police video seems to show that Zimmerman was in pretty good shape. He also had a work history as a bouncer at house parties (a job from which he was fired for being too aggressive).
Not really. There's 2 essential elements to charging manslaughter in Florida, and Zimmerman meets them.
They are, (1) Trayvon Martin is dead and (2) George Zimmerman killed him.
I don't give a shit about anything else. Zimmerman can tell his story to a Judge, and if the Judge buys his motion to dismiss, then so be it.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
It's always bothered me that forensic science doesn't involve science. It would be easy enough to reproduce the events using the same phone and recording equipment and voice samples with a few different people to establish a baseline for what we "should" expect. But instead they simply can't be bothered with scientific controls. We are just supposed to take their word for it that it should be a "90%" match. I'm this context we don't even know what 90% means.
You can't kill someone because you have a boo-boo.
And if the injuries were severe enough to justify lethal force, Zimmerman would have been taken to the ER for at least a cat-scan to make sure there aren't any skull fractures.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
No. The evidence we have shows that Martin was being followed by Zimmerman for the purposes of surveillance (911 call about a suspicious person by Zimmerman), not that Zimmerman was pursuing Martin with a weapon drawn or the threat of violence.
Right there you see Zimmerman following Martin. Another word would be stalking. The 9-11 operator told him not to engage. Any currently tested law applies only if the victim attempted to retreat and was otherwise forced into a confrontation where they had to protect their life.
Voluntarily stalking someone who probably knows you are stalking them is not what comes to mind for 'justifiable homicide'. But hey, anything to feed your fantasy of being neighborhood policeman instead of leaving it up to the police, eh?
What makes you think the police haven't already done this and found the results inconclusive.
You tards are so ready to believe.
I agree with you about too many -tards being willing to believe. Someone is trying to start a race war in this country and I'd sure like to know why.
I feel that the proper question should have started out with: Whose cellphone was the call made on? I doubt that they traded cellphones and the person making the call was probably the person screaming for help.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I don't see many people here arguing that Zimmerman should be convicted. What I see is many people (myself included) arguing that the facts presented so far are clearly very murky, and that the guy should be arrested until a proper trial can be held to determine his guilt or innocence. If he's smart, too, he'll ask to waive jury trial, that way he's much more likely to get an impartial ruling under the circumstances.
So, two experts prove conclusively that screams do not sound like talking. Thankyou experts.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
You're confusing "investigated" with "taken into custody". The cops are investigating, and will continue to investigate until they decide there's nothing more to learn. They'll question him over and over, and If they decide he wasn't being truthful they can still arrest him.
Zimmerman is screwed. Even if everything went down the way he says it did, and he's tried and found not guilty, Eric Holder's Justice Department will do an end-run around double jeopardy and convict him on some nebulous civil rights thing. Because that's what the mob wants. It's exactly the sort of thing the court system was set up to prevent.
According to Mrs. Brown, the police constructed her son's eyewitness report based on a series of leading questions. As for Trayvon Martin going for Zimmerman's gun it's a: just Zimmerman's claim and b: a perfectly reasonable self-defense action for someone being hunted for no reason by a suspicious armed man. Zimmerman forced the confrontation, if he'd been shot with his own gun it would have been a legitimate case of self defense on Martin's part. Zimmerman shooting Martin was not a legitimate case of self-defense because he was hunting Martin.
The weird thing I don't get about the "stand your ground" law in this case is how it can apply to both people. By his own account, Zimmerman was chasing Martin. Zimmerman was armed with a gun and was not in a marked security vehicle or wearing any sort of uniform, nor did he identify himself in any way as being part of the neighborhood watch.
That's what a lot of Zimmerman apologists/shills even on /. here fail to account for.
Going out armed at night, without anything to identify yourself differently from a guy who wants to mug you, and following/stalking someone with (or without) their knowledge should not entitle you to Stand-your-ground.
Zimmerman walked out looking for a fight and took steps (like not being/wearing garb of a neighborhood watch association, pursuing Martin, etc) to enforce a confrontation. He should be investigated thoroughly at a minimum.
Anyone who advocates differently from doing other than at least a thorough investigation should have their biases checked. We need more facts, not police agencies willfully obfuscating cases just because they're lazy.
Police officers wear uniforms and travel in marked vehicles. Even when they don't, they're required to clearly identify themselves as police officers. Even in the delusional world-view you're putting forward (which I think might be sarcasm), Zimmerman would need to identify himself clearly as neighborhood watch to have any such protection. Also, if I understand correctly, Zimmerman was a "ranking" member of the neighborhood watch by default. As I understand it, he was the only member.
You do know that Zimmerman was treated at the scene for injuries from havnig his head slammed into concrete...
But apparently Zimmerman was not injured as he claims. Surely you must be aware of that, which makes me think bad things about you.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
In every neighborhood watch program the first rule is watchers do not follow or confront the suspects, they notify the police and let them handle it. The second rule is you are not allowed to not carry or use weapons.
From the Sanford Florida's Neighborhood watch guide...
Remember always that your responsibility is to report crime. Do not take any risks to prevent a crime or try to make an arrest. The responsibility for
apprehending criminals belongs to the police department.
"In no program that I have ever heard of does someone patrol with a gun in their pocket," Carmen Caldwell, the Executive Director of Citizens' Crime Watch of Miami-Dade, told theGrio. "Every city and municipality has their own policies. Here in Miami-Dade we train people only to be the eyes and ears of their communities. Not to follow and most definitely not to carry a weapon."
Then you have the fact that the 911 operator specifically told him not to follow the subject. Yet you can hear him continue to follow on the audio.
Are you following him?”
“Yeah.”
“OK, we don’t need you to do that,”
He also mutters a racial epitaph "Fucking coons" and shortly there after people report that you can hear the gun being cocked.
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
Same here. Speaker identification software works great for helping point you in the right direction, but as far as being able to determine who is or is not screaming based on calm voice samples, the technology just isn't that good.
You do know there are other eyewitnesses who claimed that was not the case? That's your probable cause right there.
Fabulous! New information! I'm for new information. Here is a link showing the eye witness I'm referring to:
And here is another report, which seems consistent with the above, and seems to be someone different:
And of course Zimmerman was treated on the scene for head injuries, which is again consistent with the other reports.
As it was, the police took Zimmerman in for questioning in handcuffs, and released him. They know where he lives.
Do you have a link for me?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Stalking someone is often a prelude to assault, robbery and/or murder. In any case, it is not only a provocation, but a direct threat to the subjects safety. While it does not give a right to attack, hindering someone's movements such that they DO have to pass through you or near you would, under most courts, be at your fault.
The fact that you have to argue for the right to stalk and threaten other people while defending someone who stalked and ultimately killed a youth is sickening to say the least.
Evidence is seemingly contradictory...
Leading me to the opinion that the rot in this case goes deep indeed, I don't know about you.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
You know what? I'm not playing this game.
There is no such thing as "injuries severe enough to justify lethal force". If someone has reasonable cause to fear for their safety, if you injure them at all, they are justified in using any and all available force to stop you from injuring them further. Period.
Don't like it? Don't start fights you can't win. And since concealed carry is legal (and Zimmerman had a CCW permit, by the way), you have no way of knowing whether someone has a concealed weapon. So, the moral of the story: don't start fights.
Elaborate why, genius.
Unless the act of clearing them constitutes an act that deprives them of their natural rights, or it can be shown that the process of detaining them until a full inquiry is fundamentally unjust, then I see no issue.
It would be no different a rationale than keeping suspects who've been arrested for suspicion of murder in jail until some form of bail (if allowed) is posted.
In addition, an eyewitness, 13-year-old Austin Brown, told police he saw a man fitting Zimmerman's description lying on the grass moaning and crying for help just seconds before he heard the gunshot that killed Martin.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/28/10909475-witness-mom-says-police-told-her-trayvon-martin-shooting-wasnt-self-defense
Do you have a link for me?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/30/trayvon-martin-lawyers-evidence-leaks-zimmerman
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/20/neighbor-trayvon-martin-shooting-wasnt-self-defense/
Like I said, the witness story is inconsistent; the problem is that either side cherry picks the lines that support their case. Which, to me, is a clear indication that this should go to trial, where they can properly examine the evidence, question the witnesses etc
I've tried to stick to the indisputable facts in forming my opinion on this case (of which there are few), but regardless of the legal outcome, it seems clear to me that Trayvon Martin did not need to die that night, and that his death was the result of George Zimmerman patrolling the neighborhood with a firearm and choosing to follow Martin.
Had Zimmerman not been patrolling, or had he been patrolling without a firearm, or had he been patrolling with a firearm but taken the 911 operator's suggestion and not followed Martin, Martin would not be dead.
Even if Zimmerman's actions were legally justified, it doesn't mean they were right or intelligent. I was assaulted in downtown Washington, DC in the middle of the day. I could have escalated the situation and probably have been legally justified in doing so, but for all I know I might have gotten myself stabbed or run down by the car the asshole was driving. And for what? And here, Martin is dead--for what?
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
It looks increasingly likely that he will face a jury.
I think you are missing the part where the public opinion/outrage is apparently the only reason for that possibility.
If this wasn't picked up by the news I wager Zimmerman would be in the clear.
Slashdot poster proves conclusively that brain death is not actual death.
Are you really that stupid?
Do we have those reports? If there was a dead person, the paramedics would respond. If there was someone who, uninjured, beat the other man to death with his fists, he would be "treated" for knuckle bruises and such, even if he wasn't injured by the other person. Being "treated" could mean anything from a quick look to a brain transplant, and just throwing around "treated" like it has substantiative meaning is useless at best, and lying at worst.
Learn to love Alaska
No, a trial may not be needed to decide the facts of the case. If the DA does not have sufficient evidence to believe he/she can obtain a conviction, it is a waste of taxpayer resources to bring the case to trial. The information currently available suggests that the DA so believes. We do not have the ability to analyze the evidence well enough to determine whether or not a trial is called for. However, considering the conflicting evidence that is available to us, it seems likely that the DA would be unable to prove criminal behavior on Zimmerman's part.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Except he wouldn't have broken the law if he believed he was protecting himself. The beauty of the Florida stand your ground law is that it's so broad that had Martin killed Zimmerman he could have plead self defense. Except for the fact that he was black and not the son of a judge. Florida's stand your ground law protects the instigator. That's the point of stand your ground laws. Prior to SYG the standard was that you had to try and avoid or escape situations that require deadly force. Florida's statue is so broad that believing you are preventing a felony is a good enough reason to shoot to kill.
But apparently Zimmerman was not injured [time.com] as he claims. Surely you must be aware of that, which makes me think bad things about you.
So, you are claiming that the police report - made before this became a controversial case - is false?
"While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of his head. . . .
Zimmerman was placed in the rear of my police vehicle and was given first aid by the SFD.
Do you have any evidence that the police falsified their report? If you don't, do you think I should think and feel like someone I can quote: "Surely you must be aware of that, which makes me think bad things about you" ?
Inconvenient narratives in the Martin case
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Martin was a well-built athlete. Zimmerman, not so much. If Martin started a fight, it's highly probable that he didn't know Zimmerman was armed.
Zimmerman started the fight by stalking Martin. Martin, concerned about the strange armed man following him, attempted to scare off the stalker. The stalker then shot him. That's Zimmerman's idealized sequence of events, presented in a negative way, but nothing in that contradicts the statements of the person being investigated to murder.
Learn to love Alaska
He was with his father visiting his father's fiance who lived in the community. He had every legal right to be where he was.
There is a war going on for your mind.
It's pretty silly when DA is the sole person to judge whether he has "sufficient evidence" - it's practically a get of of jail card for anyone he decides to not prosecute. What happened to "justice for all"? A guy has been killed, and it is claimed that he was murdered, with some evidence corroborating that version. If there isn't even a trial to refute those claims, I'd say that justice failed him.
Zimmerman literally broke every single rule of his neighborhood watch association on the day he murdered Trayvon.
There is a war going on for your mind.
My assertion is that even if we *only* take the statements that support Zimmerman (including Zimmerman's own statements), I would still find Zimmerman guilty of murder. He doesn't get to stand his ground after stalking someone, far from the initial location. He took no actions to diffuse the situation, and only acted to escalate it. A burgler doesn't get to break into someone's house, then shoot them, claiming SYG defense. He shouldn't have been there. Zimmerman was stalking someone who was, as far as we can tell, suspicious for the sole reason that he was Black. After harassing this black person for a while by following mennacingly, the Black person confronted him and was killed for being Black. That's what Zimmerman says happened (excluding the race, but without any reasoning about what he found suspicious), and that's why it's getting so much attention nationally.
Learn to love Alaska
Instead of misdirecting your rage at the local officers, you should be looking at the SYG laws that put a heavy burden of proof on the prosecution...
The Stand Your Ground law does not come into play in this case. Since Zimmerman followed Martin, that completely eliminates the SYG law from being a factor. The only question is, did Zimmerman, as he contends, lose track of Martin and start to return to his car when Martin cold-cocked him and started to pound his head against the ground.
One of the biggest problems with this case is that in its initial report, NBC edited Zimmerman's 911 call to make him sound racist. NBC broadcast the recording edited to sound like this:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black."
The actual 911 conversation went like this:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
Note that Zimmerman only commented on the race of Martin when asked by the 911 dispatcher, whereas the original NBC version makes it sound like Zimmerman thought Martin was up to no good because Martin was black.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
So he had his head pounded into the pavement, his nose broken, and he shows up at the police station less than a half an hour later without a drop of blood on him or his clothes or so much as a bandaid. Not trip to the EF for an x-ray or an MRI.
When did /. fill up with racist fuckwits?
Z's idea of "fight" was dial 911 and follow at a safe distance.
M's idea of "fight" was confront the dude and teach him a lesson on courtesy.
The dude had a gun. We all know how that played out.
Someone is trying to start a race war in this country and I'd sure like to know why.
Because the whites declared equality was achieved, and the minorities know that to be a lie. The whites are causing the race war by defending the racists like Zimmerman who killed the boy because he was Black. If Martin hadn't been black, he wouldn't have been followed and attacked by Zimmerman and would still be alive, so Black is what killed him, and the system seems to be defending Zimmerman for killing some Black person.
Learn to love Alaska
Well the question I have is what you expect would have happened had a black guy shot an hispanic guy? Since this is not a case of a "white" guy shooting a black guy, but of an hispanic guy shooting a black guy, or didn't you know that part?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
So according to you, there is a law that states that you are only allowed to defend yourself if your injuries warrant being taken to the ER? I would love to see a link for that! The fact that he has ANY injury means that his story adds up.
Well, considering that the police on the scene thought there was sufficient evidence that Zimmerman acted in self defense to let him go home, it seems likely that there is insufficient evidence to convict Zimmerman with anything regarding this case. The police really dislike when people take the law into their own hands, especially when those people are minorities (were you unaware that Zimmerman is an hispanic?).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I'm not so sure that "stalking" in this case was illegal per se, which would be necessary for Trayvon to be able to legally act in self-defense. IANAL, of course, and I don't know the pertinent laws, so this is just gut feeling.
What I do know, however, is that Zimmerman's behavior prior to the shooting clearly indicates that he's mentally troubled. That alone is good reason to not trust his judgement on whether the situation required lethal force to defend himself. But, more importantly, if it was really murder and not self-defense (which is something for the court to decide), then I don't want this guy, with his clear paranoia, on the street carrying a gun in the meantime. If and when they clear him of all charges, he's welcome to pack; but, until then, I think there are sufficient doubts about his ability to control his use of a deadly weapon.
For the record, I am a pro-gun card-carrying NRA member, and a firm believer in the right of everyone to efficient self-defense. I do believe, however, that with this right come many responsibilities, especially when said right, when exercised inappropriately, may instead lead to a gross violation of the rights of other persons (such as the right to life).
He wasn't a criminal you fucking halfwit, and there was only one of him, not four.
Thank you.
There's so many opinions flying around here about this, yet I honestly can't pass judgment on any of this information.
All I do know is that the existing evidence is more than sufficient to merit formal charges and an arrest warrant.
If the DA has not put in for a warrant for Zimmerman as a suspect for murder by end of business on Monday, then I think the DOJ should pursue a more vigorous investigation into racism and misconduct within the DA's office and the Police Department.
Frankly, Zimmerman's story has stunk from the get go, the actions of the police have stunk and the more information comes out, the more the entire thing stinks. If we don't see the DA take swift and immediate action on Monday, we'll know where their motives truly lie.
I've tried to stick to the indisputable facts in forming my opinion on this case (of which there are few), ...
Are you admitting that you're decided guilt or innocence without knowing the all the facts? Or do you really think that all the facts have been released?
Racist.
Where are you guys when missing-white-girl takes over the news for months at a time? Why don't you link to scary white supremacist sites when a white person is the victim of a crime?
It's truly pathetic when your political beliefs allow you to paint any news event into a liberals-are-evil conspiracy.
Deaf.
Well, except that Zimmerman was not "responsible" for securing anything. He was a "self-appointed" Neighborhood Watch "captain," which translates to "a wannabe cop with a gun and some racist obsessions playing vigilante." And "observing" is not the same thing as "pursuing" (which is more like stalking).
So, I guess everything you said is wrong.
So he was allowed to shoot anyone in his neighborhood? Where can I sign up?
The calls the screams were recorded from were made by neighbors calling 911 to report the altercation. This was not either Martin's or Zimmerman's cell phones.
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
6'3" at 140 pounds is anything but well built.
The police dispatcher told him not to follow because Zimmerman was known to the Sanford PD, having made calls to them forty-six times since the beginning of 2011, for everything from a pothole to the presence of a black child, age seven to nine years of age.
The dispatcher said not to follow because the police dispatcher likely knew he was a lunatic who self-appointed himself the "neighborhood watch" (Zimmerman was not a member of any such sanctioned organization; his authority was the same as if I were to call myself the Queen of Spain), and had a history of violence.
Considering an unarmed boy who was out to buy skittles and iced tea is dead now, the dispatcher was correct.
No, it was an armed man following and stalking someone that was the provocation.
Learn to love Alaska
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqKSMMEYHxA
I don't see any head injuries. Or any blood, which is funny, considering head wounds bleed a lot. Oh, and the fact he supposedly just shot a guy to death as the guy was on top of him. If his story is true, he should be covered in blood.
Whar blood, whar?
Wow. You really like repeating yourself, don't you? Are you trying for quantity over quality?
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
"Latino" or "Hispanic" are markers of cultural background, not race.
That Slashdot posters don't know this and keep confusing this shows us how little 18-34 year old white males with no children (per Alexa) understand the politics of race in America.
(FYI, 69% of Mexico self-identifies as white or mixed-white per 2012 demographic info.)
Wow, I really like the part where you throw out a whole bunch of ad hominem charges and coded racism to argue for Zimmerman walking. So, people who don't like the idea of armed racists chasing down and murdering defenseless teenagers are homeless freeloaders? That Martin somehow was culpable because he was dressed like a gangbanger? Did you read anything about this case at all? The kid was going to the store and back, you know: to his home, where he lived. And Zimmerman - a guy with a history of obsessing about "those people" and who appointed himself "Neighborhood Watch Captain" without anybody asking him to do so - stalks the kid, accosts him, and shoots him dead in the street. And all this is somehow justified because Real Americans are being oppressed by some Ayn Randian race-war fantasy?
Don't get me wrong: I'm pretty confident he's going to walk. But that's because the US is still a barely-held-together surface of bullshit social conventions that thinly covers a seething torrent of bitter racism and venal, belligerent warmongering, not because I think in any way that his actions are somehow justified. The idea, that Zimmerman should be set free, because black people lived near him (I like the thinly-veiled racism behind using "thugs" to denote "black people in hoodies") and that was scary, and that this is somehow what should determine the verdict, is repugnant to the idea of a just society, and destructive to a nation of laws.
But I doubt his broken nose claim is true.
I've seen at least two people's noses broken through accidental contact on a sports field. In one case, there wasn't even much blood. In both cases, you couldn't tell anything was wrong just by looking at them, and these were both people I'd known for years. Yet you expect to judge whether a nose is broken on a dude you've never seen in person, from a blurry, low resolution video? Seriously?
Also, what's with this "forensic voiceprint" bullshit? Is this of the same caliber as "forensic hair analysis", which was used to put hundreds of innocent (and mostly black men) people on death row? This is the most irresponsible bullshit I've ever seen Slashdot come up with - you're helping try him in the court of public opinion, not to mention providing a huge slashvertisement for owen.
Please help metamoderate.
Z's idea of "fight" was dial 911 and follow at a safe distance.
If that's true, why is there a dead person? You've proven his judgment is bad, and nothing else.
Learn to love Alaska
If "Stand your ground" means, that you can use deadly force against someone you feel threatened by if you are on your own hometurf, and Mr. Zimmerman can rightfully claim this, then how comes, Mr. Martin should not have the right to confront someone he feels threatened by with deadly force?
If Mr. Zimmerman had this right, then Mr. Martin had it more, because his fears were obviously justified.
I say that first we give him a fair trial and then we hang him. Gives 'em time to build a solid scaffold too.
...not to mention the bounty that the Black Panthers have placed on Zimmerman's head.
sig: sauer
I'm not so sure that "stalking" in this case was illegal per se, which would be necessary for Trayvon to be able to legally act in self-defense.
I believe it fits Florida's definition of harassment. Stalking is generally legally reserved for violating a restraining order, so I agree that I may have been using a common word correctly, but not the accurate legal term. Zimmerman was, from his account, illegally harassing a black youth because the youth "looked suspicious" (DWB on feet). I can't figure out the facts of this. There were apparently multiple 911 phone calls from multiple people, and not much of a timeline set up with who said what when. Zimmerman apparently called 911 to report the youth for being suspiciously Black, and the 911 operator told him to back off and let the police respond. Zimmerman knew he could handle anything because he had a gun and apparently wanted to use it. So Zimmerman continued to approach (follow, stalk, harass) the youth until the youth told him to go away, after which Zimmerman shot and killed him.
Robbers in someone else's house do not get to claim stand your ground defenses when they kill homeowners. Zimmerman killed the youth for being Black in *his* neighborhood. The response from the mostly white judicial system seems to indicate that such actions are ok, after all, aren't we all scared of those big bad Black people? I've seen people question the race issue, but none have said that they believe Zimmerman would have followed whites as religiously (and there have been bits of his history from his recorded 911 calls that indicate he only calls on Blacks, which is unusual, as they are a minority in that neighborhood).
Learn to love Alaska
According to "Stand your ground", confronting the dude and using force against him is completely within the limits of the law. So what Mr. Martin did was completely ok. What Mr. Zimmerman did, is quite questionable still.
I don't trust the police to make such judgments. Their goal is to prevent obvious breaches of peace, they're not judges. There's a reason why we have courts in the first place.
In other words, "guilty until proven innocent." That's idiotic.
sig: sauer
I happy that you have some insider information and know all the facts.
Where in my post did I say that I know all facts? All I said is that the 'facts' presented so far are contradictory - there are several witnesses arguing either way. Hence why I say that we need a trial to discover facts.
1. Zimmerman is not white. 2. If Zimmerman was black, this would be a non-story. All of the people crying for blood in this case, claiming racism, are themselves the racists.
sig: sauer
Hint, the guy screaming for help is usually willing to stop fighting.
Martin was on his hometurf, he felt threatened and according to SYG was fully right to attack his opponent with deadly force. And that's following Mr. Zimmerman's reporting of the events.
Who exactly do you want to decide whether or not there is enough evidence to bring charges, since you do not trust either the DA or the police to make this decision?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I don't know....when did you show up?
If "Stand your ground" means, that you can use deadly force against someone you feel threatened by if you are on your own hometurf, and Mr. Zimmerman can rightfully claim this, then how comes, Mr. Martin should not have the right to confront someone he feels threatened by with deadly force?
You can't just randomly claim to "feel threatened", it has to be a justifiable suspicion that any reasonable person in your place would have made. Without knowing the details of Zimmerman's "stalking", it's hard to say anything for certain; but, generally speaking, if you see a man following you around, it's definitely suspicious as hell, but it is not enough to invoke SYG and start shooting (or punching) him.
On the other hand, if Zimmerman did provoke Treyvon into assaulting him, e.g. by verbal insults, then it will make him hard to claim SYG for himself.
According to "Stand Your Ground", it's sufficient that you feel threatened by a perpetrator to use deadly force on him (at least that's the defense of Mr. Zimmerman, who went free because of it). Mr. Martin obviously felt threatened and was fully within his rights when attacking Mr. Zimmerman.
The outrage in this case is because most people believe, if a person, particularly a child, is shot dead in the street, that there should be an accounting before a court of law for that death unless the evidence is overwhelming that no crime took place. Your race-baiting crime stats are irrelevant to the sense of fundamental injustice that people feel about an unaccounted death. If your child was killed while walking home from the store, you would want the perpetrator brought to justice regardless of whether his racial makeup fit into some convenient narrative you seem to think is so important.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
A guy gives you a "warning punch" in a shoulder in the midst on an argument. You feel pain, so you've been "injured". You take out your concealed gun and shoot the guy in the head.
You have to be reasonably concerned about your safety, and this is not reasonable. This is insane.
I don't know what happened. I don't say the kid was a gang banger. For all I know he was going to the store in the A.M. for some skittles, it could be. I'm saying that neighborhoods are getting fed up with being treated like ATM's by teenagers and those people are the ones that are going to sit on any jury. I've read the accounts of what happened, the only witnesses to the altercation seem to back Zimmerman. The 911 call seems to indicate he's chasing Martin but then he claims that when they told him to stop he stopped. Maybe he didn't. Zimmerman was wounded in the altercation but it could be that he started it and then when he was getting his ass beat he pulled the gun and shot. Could be. I bet though, in a jury trial, that if his witnesses back him he's going to walk especially the way Florida law is written.
I believe it fits Florida's definition of harassment. Stalking is generally legally reserved for violating a restraining order, so I agree that I may have been using a common word correctly, but not the accurate legal term. Zimmerman was, from his account, illegally harassing a black youth because the youth "looked suspicious" (DWB on feet). I can't figure out the facts of this. There were apparently multiple 911 phone calls from multiple people, and not much of a timeline set up with who said what when. Zimmerman apparently called 911 to report the youth for being suspiciously Black, and the 911 operator told him to back off and let the police respond. Zimmerman knew he could handle anything because he had a gun and apparently wanted to use it. So Zimmerman continued to approach (follow, stalk, harass) the youth until the youth told him to go away, after which Zimmerman shot and killed him.
In most states, physical self-defense is usually limited to either imminent threat of death of significant bodily harm, or the commission of certain crimes that are inherently associated with such (e.g. in my state, it's stuff like robbery, rape or arson, where the perpetrator caught in act is basically presumed to be harming). I don't know if Florida laws qualify harassment in a similar way, but I doubt that.
Now, if Trayvon really did just tell Zimmerman to leave, he was of course in his own right to do so. If Zimmerman then flashed his gun, at that point it would have been self-defense for Trayvon to assault him unarmed, and then, of course, Zimmerman doesn't get to claim self-defense for himself. But it is not clear who initiated threat of force here first - if Trayvon, say, hit Zimmerman hard before the latter had any chance to interact with him other than verbally, then Trayvon doesn't get to claim SYG (though, interestingly enough, if Zimmerman has verbally provoked the assault, he might not get to claim SYG, either).
Really, It all hinges on many little things, which can only pieced together in a proper investigation - and even then I'd imagine that it would be a hard decision for the jury (or the judge). But that's why we have all those procedures there in the first place.
Usually the guy standing over the corpse with a gun will be arrested. The investigation also won't take weeks with no end in sight.
The way I see it, if you've got a dead body on your hands with clear signs of violent death, and witnesses are not in unanimous agreement over who assaulted whom, you always bring charges - it's evidence and probable cause (of manslaughter, at least) in its own right. If it was really self-defense, the accused gets to claim so in the trial.
(for the record, if I ever happen to shoot someone in self-defense, I would fully expect this to be applied to myself)
There is evidence. There is a dead guy and another one who shot him.
How's that not evidence enough?
What, you doubt that version of events? You doubt that Zimmerman, who admittedly followed the kid and confronted him, was the aggressor?
Maybe Zimmerman was innocently keeping an eye on a suspicious, dark, menacing, hoodie-wearing black thug, who flew into a Skittles-crazed Ebonic-profanity laced attack when merely asked about his whereabouts, and fully deserved, therefore, to get gunned down like a sub-human animal? Well, maybe so. Maybe that's exactly what happened.
Let's have a court of law make a determination, is all people are saying.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
And why should he not?
Because lots of bad things might happen to either of them, including the innocent person Zimmerman was following being shot dead. And indeed that's what happened.
A concealed weapon license is no a license to act as if you're a cop.
There's no duty to retreat in Florida. That was the whole point of "stand your ground". And, IMO, it's perfectly reasonable; why should one legally have to retreat if attacked?
Are you seriously suggesting that shooting and killing someone is a crime 100% of the time? What is the evidence that it wasn't self-defense? There is evidence that it WAS self-defense, so please take me through the evidence that it wasn't.
Right, if Martin killed Zimmerman after he drew his weapon he would have been justified. In states that don't recognize a strong right to self-defense people attacked by multiple assailants or even in their own homes are routinely prosecuted and often convicted because they didn't escape hard enough. And most of the people being stripped of their right to self-defense are black (drug dealers).
Zimmerman has a wound on the back of his head. How do you think that got there? A warning punch on the shoulder?
No, I actually don't like repeating myself. Unfortunately idiocy tends to be fully redundant here, when one stupid post fails another is available to carry on the thread. Are you an orphan? I sure hope so.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
If someone has reasonable cause to fear for their safety, if you injure them at all, they are justified in using any and all available force to stop you from injuring them further. Period.
That's just plain wrong. The law allows only for "reasonable force" to be used in self defense not "any and all available force".
Not really. He could have put his hands on Treyvon, or otherwise conducted himself in a manner that places him as the aggressor.
the DA office doesn't seem to understand that "Stand Your Ground" is just an affirmative defense against a crime, not a magic spell that means someone can't be arrested.
All this time the DA has been desperately casting "Dispel Magic" and other charms, frantically trying to arrest this guy before the citizens storm in with pitchforks.
So, you are claiming that the police report [sanfordfl.gov] - made before this became a controversial case - is false?
Are you claiming it's not?
Watch the fucking video and decide for yourself if this dude looks like hes just had his head smashed and beaten into pavement.
That sounds good, except look at it this way. If the DA doesn't want to prosecute the person (for whatever reason), do you really think they are going to do a good job of presenting the evidence? To be perfectly honest, if I was a person who had committed murder and the DA did not want to see me go to jail, I would prefer he prosecute me, because after his easily refuted case was defeated, no one with more interest in convicting me would be able to charge me for that crime. Additionally, and more importantly, if the DA brings charges when they do not have sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction and then two or three years later new evidence surfaces, they will not be able to charge the person again. As a result, if the case automatically goes to trial a significant number of people who might otherwise be convicted will walk because key evidence was not yet known at the time of the original trial.
Your "solution" in this case would not solve the problem you are concerned with and would create other problems at least as great.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
In 2009 there were 2,867 black males killed in the United States, of which 2,604 were killed by other blacks, 209 killed by whites. Why the outrage in this case? Might it be various people made assumptions about how this would play out?
It might, might, might just have something to do with the fact that this was not such a cut and dry scenario, and the suspect wasn't arrested. Of those 2,867 killings you cite, how many of those killers were arrested for murder or manslaughter? How many of those cases were regarded as self-defense?
People are understandably quick to bring race into the equation, but on it's most underlying level, an unarmed boy was shot by a large adult with a gun and an arrest wasn't made. The unarmed boy was reportedly making a run for junk food for his younger brother, the armed man was at some point following the boy around after being advised not to because the police were on the way. It's suspicious, regardless of what color either character is.
If it doesn't appear to be a crime they probably won't be arrested, just a statement taken. Killing someone isn't necessarily a crime. Justified self-defense is not a crime, at least in the United States. In other countries you might be right as there is little if any right to self-defense regardless of circumstances. An Englishman's home used to be his castle, but now you would be lucky to avoid prosecution by the Crown and a long sentence if a robber died of exertion while in the act of beating you half to death, even if it was a repeat visit and beating.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The fact that he has ANY injury means that his story adds up.
Yeah--it adds to him chasing down and confronting this boy (WHO WAS INNOCENT OF ANY WRONGDOING), possibly being attacked by the boy (in SELF DEFENSE), maybe even with the boy getting the upper hand....and then shooting this kid he provoked a fight with.
You don't see the wrong in that?
If Martin attacked him, he was the first and only person who broke a law.
Nope. Following someone in that manner fits the definition of harassment in FL law, so Zimmerman was the first and only person who broke a law.
Learn to love Alaska
The reason behind this law is because even though in Florida you have a right to defend yourself with lethal force if necessarily there were cases where peoples lives were destroyed by a prosecutor or judge that didn't agree with this law. The would keep the person in court so long they would bankrupt them and ruin their lives just for protecting themselves or family. So this law was passed to protect people from anti-gun and anti-self defense prosecutors. So while it might not be a great law if there weren't prosecutors that thought they were above the law and used the legal system as an assault weapon it wouldn't have been needed.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
You do know that Zimmerman was treated at the scene for injuries from havnig his head slammed into concrete by the 6'3" (1.9m) athlete Martin, was taken to the police station in hand cuffs, questioned, and released? You do know that there was at least one eyewitness that corroborated that Zimmerman was on the ground being attacked and calling for help?
Wasn't Martin standing his ground? He was walking down the street, unarmed, when he noticed some stranger following him. He may not have known that Zimmerman was armed, but he (Zimmerman) was obviously up to something. Martin may have even tried to escape. (Considering that he was walking away from Zimmerman, it's hard to say if and when his behavior went from "walking home from the store" to "trying to get away from stalker").
So, under the interpretation of SYG being tossed around, didn't Martin have the right to defend himself?
Oh, I don't know... perhaps because a 17 year old kid who had been tracked down and attacked was fighting for his life? The human body is pretty powerful (ie, able to overcome the large size difference between the man and the teenager) when he chased down and assaulted the kid.
Of course, when Zimmerman shot him it was all over. Only so much the body can do. I mean, he had Skittles and Ice Tea on him - maybe if he ate those it would have cured the gunshot wound? Maybe he could have used those "in a threatening manner" against a much larger, angry, racist with a handgun.
Feared for his life? Please. He executed a black kid because he was committing the heinous crime of walking down the street while black.
Trayvon Martin DIDN'T start the fight. In case you haven't been keeping up, he was killed because Zimmerman IGNORED THE POLICE and started following and harassing a random kid.
The legal wrong is shooting someone dead.
Attacking someone physically is also wrong.
If that happened first shooting someone dead was not actually legally wrong.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
But if the prosecutor is pretty sure they won't be able to convict and they throw him in jail it could be a pretty large wrongful incarceration claim. If the prosecutor doesn't think there's enough evidence chances are overwhelming that the judge won't either. Besides, the case continues to be investigated and if you are worried about police bias the feds have involved as well. If there's a real chance Zimmerman can be successfully prosecuted reat assured they'll arrest him.
If this had happened to a white kid the shooter would already be in jail.
If the shooter was black the jury would probably be deciding between life imprisonment and death penalty by now.
A guy gives you a "warning punch" in a shoulder in the midst on an argument.
There is no such thing legally as a "warning punch", it is battery - a crime. You don't have the right to hit people no matter how much they piss you off in an argument. The only "out" you might get there is "fighting words", but I wouldn't look to it.
If you are smashing someone's head into the concrete pavement you are using potentially lethal force against them and shouldn't be surprised if they do whatever then can to end the threat you pose to them and their life.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Really, It all hinges on many little things, which can only pieced together in a proper investigation - and even then I'd imagine that it would be a hard decision for the jury (or the judge). But that's why we have all those procedures there in the first place.
I disagree. Zimmerman followed someone he believed "suspicious" despite advice from the police department otherwise. He didn't follow at a "safe" distance as others have asserted, as there was a confrontation he claims was unavoidable because he was too close to avoid it. He followed a person with the intent of harming them (that the harm intended was, at best, fingering him for an arrest, though he was in violation of no laws is irrelevant, harm was his intention). He was asked to stop and did not (according to witnesses, and nothing from Zimmerman has contradicted that). Brandishing is irrelevant to Zimmerman trying to get into an unsafe situation. From his own account, he deliberately put himself in harms way with a gun in his hand, then used that gun. That's not "neighborhood watch" that's hunting.
Learn to love Alaska
I just happened to have it handy.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Ayn Rand is not a libertarian, she's an anarchist. Libertarians just don't know the difference between small and ineffective government and no government.
Learn to love Alaska
That broken nose sure did repair itself quickly on the police station CCTV!
Is Zimmerman secretly Wolverine?
Fine. Let the GRAND JURY sort it out then.
That's what they are there for.
There seems to be a clear unwillingess on the part of Sanford to bother following any sort of normal criminal procedure here. This is despite the fact that we have an armed adult who stalked a child and ended up shooting him.
The usual procedure for sorting out these things should have been allowed to function.
Give the shooter his day in court.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I don't give a shit about anything else. Zimmerman can tell his story to a Judge, and if the Judge buys his motion to dismiss, then so be it.
Sorry, but you are skipping an important part of the process - the prosecutor's decision. The prosecutor decides if the case goes to trial, not the judge. The prosecutor decides if there is evidence of a crime, and if there is enough evidence to go to trial and get a conviction. The judge only gets to hear what the prosecutor puts before him. If the prosecutor evaluates the evidence and decides that the evidence shows justifiable self-defense, then he will probably decline to prosecute and there is no case, no trial. That is the end of it. If you don't like that, tough, that's the way the law works regardless of your feelings.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Florida's statue is so broad
If only they opted for a thinner statue, the state wouldn't be in such a financial mess.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
There are "well established facts" in this case.
They are sufficient to treat Zimmerman as a murderer.
What we don't have are sufficient "well established facts" to conclude that he is not a murderer. Therefore, the local authorities should be treating him as a murderer and going through the normal associated procedures.
Failing to allow such procedures to proceed merely ensure that the facts are never established.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
It's pretty silly when DA is the sole person to judge whether he has "sufficient evidence" - it's practically a get of of jail card for anyone he decides to not prosecute.
That is the way the law works, and has worked, for a very long time. It won't be changed for this case.
A guy has been killed, and it is claimed that he was murdered, with some evidence corroborating that version.
The more I look the more it appears that there is little if any evidence to support that, including some links you provided in another post. (I'll get back to those.)
If there isn't even a trial to refute those claims, I'd say that justice failed him.
If you can't provide evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard needed for conviction, there is no sense in holding a trial as it will be an expensive waste of time, and an oppressive burden on a likely innocent man. Criminal trials aren't trivial experiments to impose on people on a whim.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Well, maybe before you yell you should pay attention to what you're responding to. What I said, in response to a post claiming that the law required a person to retreat, is that Florida law has no duty to retreat. That doesn't mean that Zimmerman actually acted in self-defense, it just meant that his failure to retreat isn't sufficient to demonstrate that.
As for "provoking the entire fucking situation", there's only so far you can go with that as well. To take a totally different hypothetical, if I insult you and you pull a knife and advance on me, and I pull a gun and shoot you, I have still acted in self defense, even though I "provoked the entire fucking situation".
What exactly is it you are trying to say with your splurge of links to right wing blogs?
Are you claiming it's not?
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. You are effectively claiming that the police looked into the future and made false statements on the report for a crime that wasn't controversial at the time, or that they doctored or replace an existing report. Evidence? Did they convince the Fire Department members to lie? You are the one making the claim - provide some evidence.
Watch the fucking video [youtube.com] and decide for yourself if this dude looks like hes just had his head smashed and beaten into pavement.
It is already noted in the police report that he was injured, but maybe this will help: Police surveillance video of Zimmerman may show head injury
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Since when are hispanic folks not "white"? Did I miss a shift into a parallel universe?
Joachim
People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]
I don't know if Florida laws qualify harassment in a similar way, but I doubt that.
:-)
You're right, they don't. Florida law allows for the use of deadly force if:
"he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony."
with a "forcible felony" defined as
"treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual"
I'm sure the FL Legislature's web site has just been getting *hammered* over the last few weeks.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
DA has shown remarkably little interest in further investigation
Like you, I wasn't there either so I can't make any kind of definitive statement either, and I don't presume to know the minds of anyone involved in the case. Having said that, I don't think "racism" is the reason the DA hasn't done anything - I think it's more that he looked at the case, didn't think he could get a conviction, and didn't want to spend any more time and resources on a fruitless (to him) case when there is plenty of other work to be done. No DA is going to prosecute a case he doesn't feel he has a good chance of winning, and none of them wants to be Mike Nifong again.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
How many Slashdotters argued voraciously that Hans Reiser was innocent before all the facts were in?
Not many. Most asked for a reservation of judgment until after the facts were in. I know I was one that indicated he was likely guilty, based on the information available and probabilities of spousal murder (how many thought OJ guilty before the not guilty verdict? Or does that not work because he actually did it?).
Please, go ahead, mark this as "troll" because it doesn't fit your world view -- and you certainly can make all the correct decisions without really knowing what happened.
What you (and many others here) don't get is that if we accepted Zimmerman's account as 100% correct, he should still be behind bars. That's the number one thing to note. He called 911 from inside a car. Then, he left his car and approached someone he thought dangerous. Then the supposedly dangerous person ended up dead. That alone is sufficient to get a manslaughter conviction.
Learn to love Alaska
That doesn't have a paramedic report in it. For all we "know" from that report, George could have been spreading dead-man blood on his face and head to feign injury. What was he treated for, and how? For one, that would help us evaluate the video, as if the paramedics report head bandages and we can't see them in the video, then they were either removed or the video is insufficient for determining bandage/injury status.
Learn to love Alaska
Well maybe I WANT to YELL so the people who just arent UNDERSTANDING can realize why Zimmerman is in the wrong here, and will be prosecuted and found guilty.
There is another possibility - you don't have the facts right, you don't have the law right, and you might end up being terribly disappointed.
Or the government will be overthrown, and the guy tried and convicted outside of the court system. It's down to that, basically.
So if the fate of one person in one incident among what will probably be 2,600 black men killed this year isn't to be tried and convicted according to your say so, the government should be overthrown and vigilante justice rules? Basically, in spirit, you're a bigger threat to society than either Zimmerman or Martin.... lovely.
You know that Martin was just kicked out of school for marijuana possession? What's your deal?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
That's my point exactly. There is a usual procedure for sorting these things out. It shouldn't be disregarded just because DA says "nuh-uh, nothing to see here, move along".
Hispanics are anything from black to native american to white, the Democrats are the ones who decided to make these distinctions. As a general rule, hispanics are viewed as those descended from those who lived in areas colonized by the Spanish and Portuguese, but not those who immigrate to the US from Spain. That means that the majority of hispanics have only a partial ancestory going back to Europe. To be exact, the overwhelming majority of hispanics are descended from native americans rather than from Europeans. Traditionally, the Democrats consider anyone not descended entirely from Northern European ancestors to be non-white (for example, Democrats traditionally do not consider someone descended from Italian immigrants to be white).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
there's no indication this was premeditated
We know he was stalking the person he killed, from his 911 calls and own testimony. Unless the killing was truly self-defense, I can easily see how it can be argued to be premeditated.
Frankly, I think it has a lot more to do with Zimmerman being the son of a judge than it does with racism.
If you can't provide evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard needed for conviction
If we could assess evidence like that in advance, we wouldn't need a trial at all - either there's guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt, in which case the arrested is guilty as charged, or it's not, and they walk free. The whole point of a trial is for the judge or jury to evaluate the evidence and decide whether it does indeed prove guilt!
Criminal trials aren't trivial experiments to impose on people on a whim.
That's true. A dead body, however, is one hell of a "whim" if you ask me. I don't see how it would be unreasonably taxing to have a trial in cases that involve one - they're rare enough, and in cases where self-defense is involved, it's usually easy to argue.
Also, in my state at least, if a defendant on the charges of manslaughter or murder successfully argues self-defense and is found not guilty, all his legal fees and reasonable compensation for time lost are paid out in full by the state. I know some other states have a similar arrangement, and I think it's a very good thing - it means that every such case can be scrutinized as need be to make sure that it was really self-defense and not murder, should there be any doubt about it, but it also means that you don't financially ruin the defendant in the process.
Wait, so Zimmerman has grass stains on the back of his shirt, but his head was being smashed against *concrete*?
Something doesn't add up here.
Something doesn't add up? Yes, I guess not. You really can't count on everyone on Slashdot to think, can you?
I guess you just couldn't figure that sort of thing out without help? But you're probably sure Zimmerman is guilty of something?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
so if u follow a police officer back to his car and knock him to the ground with your hands u wont be shot due to you dont have a weapon?
The cop would be justified to use taser, club, or pepper spray in that case.
That broken nose sure did repair itself quickly on the police station CCTV!
Let me guess . . . you think that his nose would fall off if it wasn't taped in place? Broken noses don't work like that.
Is Zimmerman secretly Wolverine?
Are you secretly a troll?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
For all we "know" from that report, George could have been spreading dead-man blood on his face and head to feign injury.
Really? Really? I'll let you continue the search for that evidence. Good night.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
He was apparently arrested for interfering to prevent the arrest of a friend, he was then charged with resisting that arrest.
Could very well be.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Me too. I would almost rather have my day in court and be acquitted than be shot and have my life ended by a man who thought I was a criminal.
Florida Statute 776.032 expressly prohibits police from arresting someone who had a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. Police may investigate, the statute says, "but the agency may not arrest the person" without probable cause.
Thanks for giving an actual reference. Link for convenience:
"A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful."
I can see why police would be fidgety about arguing probable cause in a face of such a law. But I don't think that probable cause is unreasonable in this case - they have witnesses claiming that "Zimmerman shot first", so to speak, is that not good enough?
Anyway, if they keep an eye on him in the meantime, and spend that time investigating so that they can come up with a strong probable cause argument, I guess that's good enough.
I don't really understand why you've been modded up. Legally you are wrong - not just a little wrong, but completely wrong. You are not, and never have been, justified in using any and all available force to stop someone else from injuring you further. Lethal force requires a fear of death or substantial bodily injury. In many jurisdictions, there is a duty to retreat before using lethal force as well.
Trayvon, per mobile conversation with his girlfriend:
Does the NSA have a recording? (or some agency? via one of several automated, mass-surveillance systems?)
get an impartial ruling under the circumstances.
...and his father's friends in the Florida court system?
There is no "evidence" he was treated for any injury. So yeah, searching for all that would be fruitless. Plus, you are so interested in minutia, you miss the point that a white man (well, whitish, as he identifies as a white hispanic, having a white father and hispanic mother) holding a smoking gun standing over a black man is questioned and released, never arrested or charged. If the situation were reversed, then there would be a separate set of rules applied.
Learn to love Alaska
That broken nose sure did repair itself quickly on the police station CCTV!
Let me guess . . . you think that his nose would fall off if it wasn't taped in place? Broken noses don't work like that.
Is Zimmerman secretly Wolverine?
Are you secretly a troll?
No, I'm just someone who has dealt with a victim of a broken nose up close. Who said anything about tape? A broken nose sustained shortly before appearing to be totally normal on camera like that is just not adding up.
It's like drawing on yourself with a sharpie and then going on camera 15 minutes later. Unless you have access to soap and water, it's going to show. Even then, it can be hard to wash it all off. If he broke his nose (or, as he says, if the kid he chased down and shot dead broke his nose while fighting for his life) then it sure looks like his twin brother on that CCTV footage, or they shot that booking scene before the fight scene.
Where's the continuity person when you need them? Oh right, not a movie!
Goddam lib-tards trying to take away my guns.
HURRRRRRRR
The police have no duty to make it clear to you or I what the facts are here. This is the very reason we have laws against lynch mobs. No one should be tried in the media. Your opinion, and mine, simply don't matter.
We don't have a clear set of facts, nor is it important that we ever have them. It's not our problem to solve, nor is it Judge Lynch's case to try. And that's a damn good thing, if history is any indication.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Let me rehighlight your quote for more clarification:
776.041âfUse of force by aggressor.â"The justification [of self defense] described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
Of course, the text following the highlight text suggests that if one initiated or provoked the use of force, that they then have a duty to retreat, even though generally the Stand Your Ground law removes that duty to retreat, apparently if you start or provoke the conflict, then you have a duty to retreat if it gets out of hand.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
Hence why I say that we need a trial to discover facts.
No. Trials are when the prosecutor thinks they have enough evidence to obtain a guilty verdict -- based on the evidence. Not on leaks. Not on innuendo. The investigation -- before the arrest -- is when the authorities try to obtain the facts. The current rush to judgement and trial by media is going to make it impossible for Zimmerman to get a fair trial -- assuming that the evidence that neither of us knows about -- points sufficiently to his guilt.
If there's enough evidence for a trial -- and some judge actually thinks its possible to seat an impartial jury -- and said jury actually finds him guilty, at that point, by all means, fry him. But this public witch hunt without the facts is nauseating.
The police have no duty to make it clear to you or I what the facts are here.
They do if they want people to trust in the justice system.
This is the very reason we have laws against lynch mobs. No one should be tried in the media. Your opinion, and mine, simply don't matter.
It's like I keep talking to the wall or something. Can you point out a single post of mine where I suggested a lynch mob? All I'm saying is that there should be a proper trial. You know, in a court, with a judge and a jury (unless he waves his right to trial by jury), fact discovery etc. This thing exists precisely so that impartial justice can be served. It's pretty much opposite of a lynch mob or "tried in media"!
The point is that the story *adds up.* There is no evidence at this point that his story is false.
Innocent or guilty, Zimmerman has to hang. Do it now and get it over with.
Is that how we do things, though? Just arrest people and hold them while gathering evidence until a trial?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
My opinion has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. The indisputable facts--which Zimmerman himself (or at least his lawyer/spokesperson) admits--are that Martin was unarmed, that Martin was returning home, that Zimmerman was armed, and that Zimmerman (at least initially) followed Martin. That's really all I need to know to conclude that the end result--Martin ending up dead--was not inevitable. And that conclusion has nothing to do with guilt or innocence or legal justification, which was my point.
To put it another way: just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
You don't arrest people unless there's reasonable suspicion to believe that they have convicted some crime. In this case, there is a dead body, there is an admission of the guy that he made the shot (and a claim that he did so in self-defense), and a bunch of witnesses, some of which confirm his account, and some of which reject it. Don't you think that's reasons substantial enough to detain him already?
Actually if you dig a little deeper, you'll find some information coming from the 13-year-olds mother which is quite interesting, and brings into question even more of the level of police work done eg leading questions, badgering, etc.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/video-george-zimmerman-killing-trayvon-martin-grainy-proves-lawyer-article-1.1052713
brandelf -t FreeBSD
I know this can be Googled, but I don't think it would kill the submittor or editor to include a link to who these people are and why we should care.
I've never heard of either of these people. I know Phil Zimmerman was involved with PGP but that's not this guy is it?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Double blind tests remove biases from humans testers/testees who may otherwise respond to non-test signals. Algorithms cannot be biased (unless certain bias is itself part of algorithm/UI).
All that I can see that's required here is a blind test where a sample known sample of voices is passed to the algorithm, and the software results tallied against actual known facts. If the error rate s low enough, the confidence in the matching can be high enough.
http://dilemma.gulecha.org - My philospohical short film.
You do know there are other eyewitnesses who claimed that was not the case? That's your probable cause right there.
Fabulous! New information! I'm for new information. Here is a link showing the eye witness I'm referring to:
And here is another report, which seems consistent with the above, and seems to be someone different:
And of course Zimmerman was treated on the scene for head injuries, which is again consistent with the other reports.
As it was, the police took Zimmerman in for questioning in handcuffs, and released him. They know where he lives.
Do you have a link for me?
How about the surveillance video from the police station showing Zimmerman with no injuries after he was brought in? If his head was slammed into concrete such that he was at risk of dying, you would have been able to see it half an hour later. Here's the link you asked for. I bet you don't even view it - you've already made up your mind.
The weird thing I don't get about the "stand your ground" law in this case is how it can apply to both people. By his own account, Zimmerman was chasing Martin. Zimmerman was armed with a gun and was not in a marked security vehicle or wearing any sort of uniform, nor did he identify himself in any way as being part of the neighborhood watch. If Zimmerman had never shot Martin, but Martin had been arrested for attacking Zimmerman (and I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm just looking at Zimmerman's claimed version of events), then "stand your ground" should have been a viable defense for him. He was the one in fear for his life being chased by a suspicious stranger armed with a gun.
The law was badly written. The legislators who wrote the law including the chief architect of the bill all claimed that the stand your ground law was not meant to protect Zimmerman or similar cases. However, the law is written is such a way that both Zimmerman and Martin can both be right barring eyewitness evidence.
No, a trial may not be needed to decide the facts of the case. If the DA does not have sufficient evidence to believe he/she can obtain a conviction, it is a waste of taxpayer resources to bring the case to trial. The information currently available suggests that the DA so believes. We do not have the ability to analyze the evidence well enough to determine whether or not a trial is called for. However, considering the conflicting evidence that is available to us, it seems likely that the DA would be unable to prove criminal behavior on Zimmerman's part.
Wrong. A DA reason for bringing a case to trial is not based on wither he or she can get a conviction. A DA submits a case to the Grand Jury when a crime is committed and there is evidence to support the crime. The Grand Jury's job is to determine if the evidence is enough for a trial.
I looked at that video and it seems to be the same as the one from the city of Sanford's website.
I noticed that Zimmerman seems to have a bald patch, but it keeps moving around, and concluded that it's light reflecting back through his short hair, and the reason it seems to move is because Zimmerman is moving relative to the source of the light.
I looked at that video (but did not step through it frame by frame) on a 17" LCD monitor at 1280 x 1040. Perhaps if I had a much, much bigger screen running at a much higher resolution I'd see something I thought actually looks like evidence of a wound, but at this point all I'm seeing is what appears to be a trick of the light.
Which, I realize, proves nothing either way, but I don't see that this "new High Defintion clip from the police video" does either.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
You're a sick retard, huh?
Nice how you made this whole situation all about you.
I think I'm going to need a chart for this. :)
I guess there's plenty of precedent for fights (all the way from playground scuffles to major wars) between two sides each of which was only protecting itself from an unreasonable aggressor.
...all the other news topics have so few comments...
HEY dumbass, why are you making stuff up, suggesting Martin KNEW he had a gun? FABRICATED. There is absolutely no reason to believe it was not concealed as it, by nature of being a concealed weapon, always is. (As to whether or not the presence of the weapon was known once there was a physical altercation, that is N/A, or NOT APPLICABLE. Because I know you were just about to bring that up, dumb as you are.)
Since when does "hunting someone down" universally "force confrontation"? Firstly, you don't know that he was hunting him down. Evidence (911 call) actually suggests it was a safe-distance following- and that he didn't know where Martin was, at least at one point! WHY do you ignore this???
And LOL just like a lefty to suggest that being beaten up is not sufficient to use lethal stopping force, but being FOLLOWED is LOL... It is truly PAINFUL to contemplate the workings of your brain. Because it clearly doesn't work correctly.
Filthy racebaiter.
How about the surveillance video from the police station showing Zimmerman with no injuries after he was brought in? If his head was slammed into concrete such that he was at risk of dying, you would have been able to see it half an hour later. Here's the link you asked for. [cbslocal.com] I bet you don't even view it - you've already made up your mind.
Yes, I've seen that video. Now I've got a few things for you.
When the 6'3" (1.9m) tall Martin slammed Zimmerman's head into the concrete, it represented a lethal danger, not actual damage. It is like you playing in traffic on a freeway that doesn't stop - you are in danger of being hit and killed, but you aren't dead yet. Martin banged up Zimmerman, but didn't inflict mortal damage to him. Understand the difference?
Here is the police report that states he was injured and treated at the scene:
Police surveillance video of Zimmerman may show head injury
Now that you have direct police testimony (go ahead, download the original), and a different view, you're left with a question - what do you believe now, and why? If you believe Zimmerman wasn't injured, you're simply wrong.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Are you claiming it's not?
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
Local cops in Florida making up a little bullshit to let a white guy in a gated community go for murdering a black guy isn't a terribly extraordinary claim, in my opinion. I'd like to see the crime scene photos of Zimmerman's wounds, but they either haven't been released or were never taken. The video is inconclusive, and Zimmerman himself is in hiding.
Personally, I think Zimmerman should be charged even if he was attacked, but I don't find your pearl-clutching at the thought of police massaging facts in a report very credulous.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
Somehow mohhomad, I doubt we will be learning of how a Martin case of SYG self defense is very plausible. Reach if you wish. Time will tell. At which time I am sure there will be a lot of move-along-nothing-to-see-here-ing.
mmhmmmm slam dunk, ichthus
Had Martin used an umbrella and walked on a sidewalk like a normal person, likewise. Actually he may have had an umbrella for all I know. And perhaps the hood of his hoodie was not to be found on his headie. I have no idea. But neither do you idiot! So stop forming opinions. Yours are worthless anyway.
Zimmerman wasn't patrolling, he was running an errand, and when told that he didn't need to follow Martin he agreed and told the 911 operator he was returning to his vehicle.
Martin is still dead, though.
The UK report is inaccurate on at least one forensic fact: there was a single shot fired. So either the witness is misquoted by the press, or is themselves in error.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
There is no "evidence" he was treated for any injury.
Yes, there is. It is directly stated in the police report. The fact that you don't believe it doesn't change anything. The police report would be accepted as evidence in court. The lack of a paramedics report specifying the bandages used on what wound doesn't change anything.
The police report that states he was injured and treated at the scene:
Plus, you are so interested in minutia, you miss the point that a white man (well, whitish, as he identifies as a white hispanic, having a white father and hispanic mother) holding a smoking gun standing over a black man is questioned and released, never arrested or charged. If the situation were reversed, then there would be a separate set of rules applied.
Zimmerman was taken into custody to the police station in hand cuffs and questioned. He was then released. Since it was apparently a justifiable self-defense shooting he wouldn't be charged. You don't get charged when the shooting is deemed justified under the law. I don't know how that could be any clearer. This might change since there is apparently going to be a special prosecutor appointed to look into this and I wouldn't deny the possibility of something being trumped up to charge him with as a result of Al Sharpton's agitation and various riots. Or maybe there are really new facts that would show that Zimmerman broke the law somehow - but do you think having thousands of people protesting, riots, and death threats inspired by the Black Panthers is really how this should be handled? The biggest impact of race in this case is Al Sharpton and company, and groups like the Black Panthers injecting themselves into the controversy.
No justice, no agitation
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
No, because witness show that Zimmerman was returning to his car, he reported to the cops he lost him, when Martin engaged Zimmerman.
The fight occurs after that point, with Martin as the aggressor.
Zimmerman drew after he was pummeled and Zimmerman called for help according to multiple eyewitnesses.
You want this to be an open and shut case of some right wingnut with a gun killing some innocent helpless black kid. The media did no favors by showing a 13 year old Martin to make him look like a little kid.
Far more complex.
Black kid with a known attitude tweeting under nolimit_nigga and mugging gang poses on his profile. Big enough at 2 meters tall to be a threat and look older than he was. Zimmerman is Latino, a democrat, and was assaulted according to all eye witnesses before he shot Martin.
It was a tragedy for sure. Maybe Zimmerman deserves to go to jail.
But the biggest side effect will be that race baiters might finally proven they cannot be believed.
Maybe then we will get a fair society. Maybe then all the black kids shot by other black kids and the white kids shot by other white kids will be worth the life a black kid shot by a white guy.
Nah.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
He was well built enough to make it onto a school football team. Clear indication he was not an Xbox jock.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Irrelevant. Zimmerman started the fight by following a person that he merely found suspicious. The right of self-defense only applies when another person starts the fight.
He was not on his home turf, he as visiting someone. He lived with his mother.
I would not be surprised of that gated community has a requirement underaged visitors must be escorted, they generally do here in CA.
If so, where was the adult?
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
What kind incompetent idiot makes these statements without first obtaining samples of Treyvons voice and running it through the same process? If they are too lazy to do this then why should anyone trust their result?
The black kid was in the gated community too, since the entire story is that he was not there as a criminal but as a visitor of family, his BLACK family was living in the same gated community as the white man that this BLACK family KNEW was part of the neighborhood watch. Do you have any evidence that Zimmerman ever protested this residence of this BLACK family?
Gosh, how easy it is to point out your bigoted nature. Clearly a white man living in a gated community is a racist but a black family doing the same is.... well is just what? Why are they different?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Try 150-160 lbs. Wiry is one way he might be described.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Our blacks are Moroccans and the hoody is the fur colored coat. Anyway, a person who claimed to have been mugged killed one of them on a moped by slamming their car in to them. RACIST. Then tiny details started to emerge. First the family claiming that he was just an normal muslim kid doing normal every day things... THEN it emerged that the person who claimed to be mugged was not only female, but a BLACK female. Oops, so much for the white man ganging up on a poor kid.
THEN it turned out that the kid was on his way back from court, where he had been involved in a mugging case.
Conclusion? The woman was not prosecuted and a new "joke" was born.
Kid committing a robbery on his way back from court for robbery? Heel normaal, voor een marrokaan. (Very normal, for a Morrocan).
Most people in the beginning were willing to believe that the person in the car had overreacted, Holland is a liberal nation but we are not fools. More incidents like this have now made it perfectly normal for any story along these lines to question any report in favor of the minority person. The media and the minorities have lied so often about the real truth that they fully well knew.
In the US, this case will do nothing but divide the races further. A lot of people try to focus on their favorite points, like the fact this happened in a gated community and ignore the counter points (the black kid was there to visit relatives, who I can only presume are black so the attempt to make Zimmerman a racist for living in a gated community falls flat).
It is like the shootings in France, the image of Muslims in France would have been a LOT better after the shooting if the father hadn't acted like a self-righteous asshole in making demands while he full well knew one of his sons was a mass child killer and another a thief (other son stole the moped). Just a few seconds of keeping your mouth shut can do an awful lot of good will. Instead, the entire Muslim family and by extension all Muslims in France are shown to be criminals with zero sense of values or morals.
At this point I very much doubt that the outcome of the case will really matter. It is more like the Simpson trial all over again. People divided along racial lines with a desperate few to try to hide their own bigotry behind attempts to see the other sides point of view without really doing so.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I am absolutely in favour of stand your ground laws (which we don't have in my country, but chasing someone up the street after police tell you not to would seem to disqualify him from this protection as far as I can see, unless a court finds otherwise.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Your opinion, and mine, simply don't matter.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Sussex_Justices,_ex_parte_McCarthy
it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.
and
The ruling is derived from the principle of natural justice and has been followed throughout the world in countries that use the English legal system.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Zimmerman's whole case seems to ride on him "feeling threatened" which apparently makes it okay to murder people in Florida.
In most states (I'm not sure of the details for Florida) the standard is not whether HE felt threatened. The standard is whether a REASONABLE AND PRUDENT person IN HIS SITUATION would feel threatened - at risk of the loss of "life or limb".
As to "murder" there's a difference between that and "justifiable homicide". If the prosecutor thinks he has enough evidence to prove the former, expect him to bring it to court to let a judge or jury decide.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
That 's a very bad idea. Evidence should be made public whenever possible, to prevent corruption (for example, police and prosecutors protecting their friends).
Lynch mobs appear because people don't trust the system to punish the guilty. Making the evidence public is the only way to build trust.
Unless, of course, the police really is hiding something. Then there may be lynch mobs when the evidence is revealed.
If Zimmerman's head was "banged" into the concrete, there should be more damage than just a scratch that's barely visible an hour later. It sounds to me like an exaggeration, at least.
I'm not saying Zimmerman is guilty, just that there's a lot that's unclear about this case, which is why it makes sense to have a trial.
I would think that arming yourself and chasing someone to confront them would remove your protection from arrest under "stand your ground" laws. After all, they are called "stand your ground", not "chase suspicious people" laws.
And yes, I do favor gun rights, including concealed carry and strong self defense laws, I just think that if you chase someone in order to confront them then a court should decide if you were really defending yourself rather than the police just taking your word for it.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
succinct. I will go with that. The rest is handwaving and agenda pushing.
While other eye witnesses claim that Zimmerman was the aggressor, and (according to TFA) the recording shows he was not the one calling for help.
I agree that this isn't an open and shut case. That's why it needs to go to trial. The reason people are outraged is because the prosecutor won't even do that. I don't think you need to bring race into the case at all to think something's strange about it.
One might think, if Zimmerman was injured as claimed, despite being given medical attention prior to the video, that there would perhaps be *some* blood on his T-shirt and jacket, but in that video, there is not one drop of blood detectable on his clothing, as far as I can see.
The kid acted in self defence against the larger man with a gun who was pursuing him, and pushed him onto the ground?
We can't hear the kid's version, but it seems strange that he would attack a larger man without reason, when he hadn't committed any crime and all he was carrying was junk food.
If you are smashing someone's head into the concrete pavement you are using potentially lethal force against them and shouldn't be surprised if they do whatever then can to end the threat you pose to them and their life.
If you're pursuing someone with a gun, you shouldn't be surprised if they use potentially lethal force to end the threat you're posing to them and their life.
Let's assume a large black man follows a 17-year-old white boy into an alley, claiming the boy looks suspicious. There, the black man shoots the white boy. The black man emerges with minor wounds to his head and claims that he, for unknown reasons, was attacked by the white boy, who, it turns out, had done nothing wrong and wasn't carrying anything suspicious. The prosecutor decides to not prosecute because they have no proof the black man didn't act in self-defence.
Would people be so quick to jump to the black man's defence?
Welcome to "post-racial" America, enjoy your stay. Things really haven't gotten that much better.
Not quite... when Zimmerman was told he didn't need to follow Martin, he did anyway. It wasn't until he lost track of Martin he returned to his vehicle. Then the call was disconnected, so we don't know exactly what happened after that.
Personally, I find it far-fetched that Martin attacked Zimmerman for no reason. It's conceivable that Martin was upset for being treated like a criminal with no reason, and they got in a fight where Zimmerman felt threatened. It's also conceivable that Martin simply defended himself against the unknown assailant with a gun who was stalking him, and that's how Zimmerman got the minor wounds on his head.
In any case, I think it's strange that the prosecutor won't even bring this to trial.
How many Slashdotters argued voraciously that Hans Reiser [slashdot.org] was innocent before all the facts were in? How many people signed the anti-Apple-FoxConn [mashable.com] petition before the basis was found to be a hoax [slashdot.org]?
Aren't those protesting -- asking for "justice" (code word for arrest and conviction) -- engaged in the same sort of vigilante justice that got Trayvon killed?
I think most people here are just asking for a fair trial. Don't you think it's a teeny weeny bit off that Zimmerman doesn't even have to explain his actions to a jury?
That's how probable cause works. You can't just arrest somebody willy nilly.
Beg your pardon, you definitely can if he's black.
The jury is the arbitrator of fact in the American justice system. The police collects evidence, the prosecutor presents it, but the jury decides what should be believed and what shouldn't.
The suspect is usually arrested before the evidence is collected, when there's only probable cause.
I understand you're worried that Zimmerman won't get a fair trial, but that's a future danger. That Zimmerman will slip between the cracks in the justice system is a danger that's already happening.
Like the law says, they don't need to be sure Zimmerman didn't act in self-defence, they only need probable cause.
IMHO, the fact that 1) Zimmerman was the one stalking Martin, not the other way around, 2) Zimmerman had the upper hand, as he was much heavier and carrying a gun, and 3) Martin had no motivation to attack Zimmerman, should be more than enough to establish probably cause.
The public has to examine how the prosecutors and courts are doing their job, though. They can't let them get away with anything, or they'd soon have wide-spread corruption.
That's why the evidence in a case is usually available for the papers to comment on.
P.S. I mean, think about it. If the police needed to *prove* someone didn't act in self-defence, you could shoot anyone, anywhere, and get away with it, as long as there were no eye witnesses.
You don't get charged when the shooting is deemed justified under the law. I don't know how that could be any clearer.
I don't see how it can be clear that Zimmerman acted in self-defence. For starters, the boy had no motivation to attack Zimmerman, which makes Zimmerman's story at least questionable. Also, it was Zimmerman who stalked the boy, not the other way around.
Remember that, in California, you should arrest someone when there's probable cause they didn't act in self-defence. You don't need definite proof to arrest someone.
Or maybe there are really new facts that would show that Zimmerman broke the law somehow - but do you think having thousands of people protesting, riots, and death threats inspired by the Black Panthers is really how this should be handled?
Who's talked about riots?
Martin was a well-built athlete. Zimmerman, not so much.
No, Martin was a tall, gangly boy, hardly athletic, while Zimmerman was out of shape. Zimmerman was by far the heavier of the two.
If Martin sucker-punched Zimmerman and started beating on him before Zimmerman brandished a weapon, then that makes it a legitimate use-case of SYG.
I find this part of the story improbable. Why would Martin start a fight with a larger, grown man, when he hadn't done anything wrong?
Since Zimmerman was the one who followed Martin, not the other way around, the default assumption should be that Zimmerman was the aggressor. It may turn out there's not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman of anything, but IMHO, it should be enough for "probable cause".
Zimmerman apparently called 911 to report the youth for being suspiciously Black, and the 911 operator told him to back off and let the police respond.
To be fair, Zimmerman reported the youth for wearing a hoodie and looking around suspiciously, and only said he was black when the 911 operator asked him about it. Not that I think it makes Zimmerman's case much better.
There's no duty to retreat in Florida. That was the whole point of "stand your ground". And, IMO, it's perfectly reasonable; why should one legally have to retreat if attacked?
Because people are imperfect, and when two people get into an argument that escalates into a fistfight, both may believe the other one is attacking and they're only defending themselves. There needs to be a margin of error.
And, at present, the legal consensus is that Zimmerman commit a lawful act of self defense, so Martin is legally the aggressor, and Zimmerman is legally the victim.
"Consensus" means a large number of people agree on an issue. This is a single prosecutor's decision.
Since there's always the possibility of corruption (in this case, the suspect was a judge's son), we should always be critical of the police's and the prosecutors' work.
This "forensic voice" expert is missing a very important point.
The software does NOT ALWAYS match a poorly recorded voice with it's true owner, which is why the matches are only quoted as percentage of how sure IT IS, NOT how sure IT ISN'T.
This means that unless the software matches the voice with Trayvon's voice, then there can be no conclusion drawn, this is sensationalism and the undereducated media love to report on such things.
Huh? You need to get your facts straight. Your version of events assumes that Martin attacked Zimmerman, which isn't supported by the facts. Here's an alternate version of events:
Zimmerman was carrying a gun. And following Martin. Why would Zimmerman feel threatened in this situation?
Most of the witnesses say that Martin was the one on the ground, and that Zimmerman had no visible wounds. Seriously. Only one witness may have claims of the opposite, but all the other stories are consistent with these facts. Heck, even a little boy said that there was a man on the ground screaming, and he stopped after the shot was fired. You can infer that it was Martin who was on the ground.
Like you said, "Why would an unarmed guy attack a man with a gun?" It's such a stupid thing to do, which is precisely why it didn't happen.
Because the safe distance wasn't so safe when the guy he followed decided to close the distance and pick a fight.
According to "Stand your ground", confronting the dude and using force against him is completely within the limits of the law.
No, it is totally not. Zimmerman had committed no crime. Following someone is not a crime. If Martin thought that Zimmerman's behavior was suspicious, he should have dialled 911 to report the suspicious behavior. Exactly as Zimmerman did.
Assaulting someone is a crime, and Martin perpetrated a crime against someone who happened to have the means to defend himself from a violent attacker. Good for him.
When the 6'3" (1.9m) tall Martin [nwsource.com] slammed Zimmerman's head into the concrete, it represented a lethal danger, not actual damage.
Martin supposedly also weighed about 150 lbs and Zimmerman 240 lbs. A tall, gangly teen beats up a heavy adult by slamming him into things? Possible, I supposed, but it seems fishy.
Stand your ground is a complete non-factor in this case, because the claim is that Trayvon tackled Zimmerman. The media hypes on it, because they don't like stand your ground laws. There aren't many well established facts in this case, and among those is whether Trayvon attacked the guy who had been following him or not.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
IF (really, keep that word in mind please) Zimmerman's account is accurate, he harassed but did not threaten Trayvon, and Trayvon escalated to physical violence first, and did so in such a way that Zimmerman COULDN'T retreat. Trayvon was responsible for the initiation of physical violence and gave up any right to be free from it himself in doing so. It wasn't all Zimmerman's fault, because Trayvon was the one to actually attack. Fighting words don't actually free the person responding to them by fighting from responsibility for their response. At most, they can hope for a more lenient sentence because of the provocation.
I'm not saying that Zimmerman's account is necessarily accurate. But if it is your shouted description is not the least bit relevant.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Except Zimmerman hadn't actually threatened him. SYG only applies to the threat or use of actual force. Stalking does not qualify.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
No, the police didn't. Which is why the lead homicide investigator wanted Zimmerman charged. It was the DA that rejected that on the basis that, given "SYG" and the inconsistencies in the evidence, there was insufficient evidence to obtain a conviction.
Guilty until proven innocent". Crowdsourcing is probably a neutral technology with both good and dumb applications. Despite the fact that financial promoters would claim its the best thing ever invented.
Ayn Rand is not a libertarian, she's an anarchist.
No, she wasn't. At all. Not even close.
1. Tell that to the US census bureau.
2. The desire to deport all illegal, Mexican immigrants is not racism.
sig: sauer
You guys are looking at this all wrong. It's not news; it's a product.
The point is to introduce enough doubt that we'll argue over it, take sides like at a soccer/football match, call each other racists and criminals, buy hoodies on Amazon.com, watch hours of advertising and buy a lot of newspapers.
The profit motive here is for them to obscure and limit the information released, not the full story.
Hmm...
If you'll pardon me, me and my popcorn will be sitting back and watching before I leap in with some judgment one way or another.
RTFA, Zimmerman wasn't doing the screaming for help.
You want this to be an open and shut case of some right wingnut with a gun killing some innocent helpless black kid. The media did no favors by showing a 13 year old Martin to make him look like a little kid.
No. I really don't care too much about Zimmerman or Martin. I don't care if Martin really attacked Zimmerman, and I definitely don't care if he had cornrows, gold teeth, tattoos, and gangsta poses. What I care about is, how far does the law let you go? Did Martin know that Zimmerman was leaving? Did he overhear the conversation Zimmerman was having? Did he know Zimmerman had a gun, or that he wasn't going to his car to get one? Is it ok to follow someone in the name of "standing your ground"? I've argued with coworkers about whether you can shoot someone in the back in self-defense (someone locally go charged with "assault" because they shot a home intruder several times in the back while he was running away).
This is what I dislike about the SYG law, as people in the media have been portraying it. The word "aggressor" has been diluted to the point where you don't have to be attacking someone, or even looking in their general direction. You just have to look threatening.
And, yes, I can agree that it is complicated.
The shooting was well away from the road, on a sidewalk that ran between (behind) two rows of houses.
Makes it awfully difficult to say that Martin followed Zimmerman to the car, unless the confrontation somehow moved around to the back of the houses (in which case someone would have had to be retreating, making the 'in fear of my life' claim dubious).
I see you are privy to the entire investigation. Please tell us everything that has happened in it, including everything that has not been made public.
Of course, if you can't, then you are lying.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Maybe I completely missed this but I have not heard or read where the Florida State Attorney or anyone claiming to represent them even mention the "Stand Your Ground" Law as a basis for not charging Zimmerman. The first mention I have heard of this law being the measure of whether Zimmerman should or should not be charged was on CNN. Can anyone tell me if they have seen an interview or press conference where the Florida State Attorney's Office or their representative have said that that the "Stand Your Ground" law was used to measure whether the deadly force use was justified?
Watching concealed carry/general gun nuts do backflips to defend this wannabe rent-a-cop is really entertaining. If Martin had been the armed one and shot Zimmerman in perceived self defense after being stalked around the neighborhood, would you still be singing the same tune?
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Simply brandishing a gun is typically enough to stop an unarmed opponent.
No, you've got it all wrong. The lesson here is "never trust the press", not "distrust the justice system". Once you accept that the press exists to write sensationalized fiction "inspired by true events", the press coverage here won't bother you. For example:
The edited tape NBC played on the air:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black.
The actual tape:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy - is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
If you think that sort of thing is rare, you haven't been paying attention.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
But the path is not through the press, and not while the justice system is still in motion. It helps nothing to release info to the press, as they'll still just make up whatever they want to write (that's all they do). After it's settled, fine, the paperwork should be public as with anything else - but for the purpose of judging corruption, not the people involved.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
He names himself by the nickname nigga, that suggests to me a person with an attitude problem. They are not unknown to try to start a fight knowing that the moment things go wrong, the other person will back down since no-one wants to take things to far. This is a dog who barked at a cyclist hoping to scare him off. This cyclist stood his ground.
Is the above true?
The left is claiming the right is trying to make the black kid look bad by posting a posing picture he himself made. No mention of how it came to be that the ORIGINAL picture was half a decade out of date and showed someone who didn't look at all like the young adult at all.
Same with weight. Lots is made by the bleeding hearts that Zimmerman was twice as heavy. Nothing about that the black kid was far taller and far younger and far more fit. Gosh, a self proclaimed gangsta nicka, 2 meters tall, shot FROM THE FRONT, so he wasn't running away, is a purely innocent little boy hunted down by an old white oops, wait, latino man.
I used to like to think that these cases were clear cut but I am to used to both sides lying their ass off.
Oh and basically you are saying that intimidating behavior is okay, just as long as you don't do it with people who won't take it anymore.
For every real racist incident, there are 10 where so called minorities hide behind excuses. The first non-white non-christian president of the US is a black man with a muslim family background. Not a jew, not a hindy, not a native american, not an asian, not an atheist. Black. And still blacks are the biggest complainers of racism. I think people should have learned from the Simpson trial, the same lawyer is even involved for crying out loud.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
With a complete media circus, public examination of evidence and death threats against the accused; proving that we had not hit rock bottom.
"No good deed goes unpunished"
Even if Zimmerman's actions were legally justified, it doesn't mean they were right or intelligent.
Which of course has nothing to do with whether or not he should be tried...
I was assaulted in downtown Washington, DC in the middle of the day. I could have escalated the situation and probably have been legally justified in doing so, but for all I know I might have gotten myself stabbed or run down by the car the asshole was driving.
Yep, too bad it's not possible to get a CCWP in DC. Then you might have been able to defend yourself.
And for what?
The main point of self-defense is to avoid injury or death...right?
And here, Martin is dead--for what?
Allegedly, for committing a felonious assault on the wrong person.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
And just look at all those blank papers on the desk! Not a single word visible on any of them!
I mean obviously if they had words on them, you'd be able to see that in the video even if you couldn't make out the words themselves, right? Right?!?
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Hrm, hard to know exactly where to start with this beauty...
Someone is trying to start a race war in this country and I'd sure like to know why.
Because the whites declared equality was achieved, and the minorities know that to be a lie.
Really, care to cite a source?
I'm pretty sure I can name several areas where minorities receive preferential treatment, as opposed to no such programs for "white folk". If anything, at a government level, things are not equal - in favor of the minorities.
The whites are causing the race war by defending the racists like Zimmerman who killed the boy because he was Black. If Martin hadn't been black, he wouldn't have been followed and attacked by Zimmerman and would still be alive, so Black is what killed him, and the system seems to be defending Zimmerman for killing some Black person.
You're making huge assumptions in the face of zero evidence...seems you might be one of the reporters writing for AP. ;-)
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
I think the DA would be doing Zimmerman a favor if they tried him now. It'd take the heat off, the evidence could get presented, he'd be exonerated in court and this shit would be over. As it is he's going to be stalked by the media the rest of his life.
Right. As we know, OJ Simpson leads an idyllic and untroubled existence...well at least he did before he moronically got himself convicted after all...
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Which of course has nothing to do with whether or not he should be tried...
I agree. Whether or not he's guilty/innocent or should be tried is not necessarily connected with whether his actions were intelligent. The former is a matter of law. But even if he is tried and acquitted, or never even tried, I think I'm still justified in thinking this outcome was not inevitable, and that he is responsible for the outcome.
Yep, too bad it's not possible to get a CCWP in DC. Then you might have been able to defend yourself.
I think you're missing my point. I was able to defend myself. I did not escalate the situation, and no one was injured. On the other hand, if either of us had a gun, including a legal one, one or both of us might have ended up injured or dead (or, bystanders might have been injured or dead). I fail to understand how the end result of my situation, in which no one was injured, is worse than me being "able to defend myself" and someone ending up injured or dead.
The main point of self-defense is to avoid injury or death...right?
Sure, and on that count, I ended up fine, and so did he. If I had aggravated the situation, I expect that one or both of us would have ended up in the hospital and/or jail. I don't see how that's better than what actually happened.
Allegedly, for committing a felonious assault on the wrong person.
It was a rhetorical question.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
I agree. Whether or not he's guilty/innocent or should be tried is not necessarily connected with whether his actions were intelligent. The former is a matter of law. But even if he is tried and acquitted, or never even tried, I think I'm still justified in thinking this outcome was not inevitable, and that he is responsible for the outcome.
Given that you have the advantage of infallible 20/20 hindsight... It seems to have been swept under the carpet lately that Zimmerman's neighborhood had a recent rash of breakins, and he was concerned about losing a possible suspect. When it's a matter of seconds, the police are only minutes away...
Yep, too bad it's not possible to get a CCWP in DC. Then you might have been able to defend yourself.
I think you're missing my point. I was able to defend myself. I did not escalate the situation, and no one was injured.
I congratulate you on your good fortune, as well as the benefit of infallible 2/20 hindsight. ;-)
On the other hand, if either of us had a gun, including a legal one, one or both of us might have ended up injured or dead (or, bystanders might have been injured or dead).
On the gripping hand (sorry couldn't resist) if your assailant had a knife, pipe, baseball bat or one of any number of potential weapons and the inclination to use it, you could have ended up permanently injured or dead, in the absence of your own weapon. Concealed carry is intended to provide a last resort if there is no better way to ensure your safety.
I fail to understand how the end result of my situation, in which no one was injured, is worse than me being "able to defend myself" and someone ending up injured or dead.
It's not, however you should also recognize that wasn't the only possible outcome.
The main point of self-defense is to avoid injury or death...right?
Sure, and on that count, I ended up fine, and so did he. If I had aggravated the situation, I expect that one or both of us would have ended up in the hospital and/or jail. I don't see how that's better than what actually happened.
You're not considering what might have happened had he aggravated the situation.
Allegedly, for committing a felonious assault on the wrong person.
It was a rhetorical question.
It was not a rhetorical answer. ;-)
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
RTFA, Zimmerman wasn't doing the screaming for help.
I'm sure what you meant to say that, contrary to an eyewitness account, some software assigns a 52% probability to it not being Zimmerman screaming for help.
Not very convincing, IMNSHO.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
To be unfair, every "suspicious" person Zimmerman has followed (I seem to recall the number 6 thrown about) has been black. It's an amazing coincidence that in a neighborhood with so few blacks, every person Zimmerman has ever called 911 on has been black. That indicates a pattern all on its own.
Learn to love Alaska
Really, care to cite a source?
I cite reality.
You're making huge assumptions in the face of zero evidence
I'm taking everything Zimmerman and the police have said as true. If that's a poor assumption for this case, please identify who is lying to me. Taking everything Zimmerman has said as true still results in an unjustified attack and murder of an unarmed man, and the police just reinforce that.
Learn to love Alaska
Right. It wasn't a safe distance. So Zimmerman's assessment of "safe" was wrong. He has poor judgement. He was in a car following someone on foot, and still managed to unsafe himself. Again, poor judgement.
Learn to love Alaska
The 48% match isn't a probability figure, it's based on measurable traits. According to TFA, if the screams were Zimmerman's, they would expect a 90% or better match.
OB car analogy, if you're looking for a black sedan w/ a sunroof and whitewalls, a black sedan with no sunroof and whitewall tires is a 75% match but 0% likely to be the same car.
Most modern libertarians are functional anarchists.
Learn to love Alaska
shows us how little 18-34 year old white males with no children (per Alexa) understand the politics of race in America.
That or the fact that the governmental definitions of race don't mimic the self identification of folks in the real world. Texan here, living in a city of majority Hispanics, and I've never met a one describe themselves as white, nor any delineate between culture and race as any significant boundary.
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
The 48% match isn't a probability figure, it's based on measurable traits. According to TFA, if the screams were Zimmerman's, they would expect a 90% or better match.
OB car analogy, if you're looking for a black sedan w/ a sunroof and whitewalls, a black sedan with no sunroof and whitewall tires is a 75% match but 0% likely to be the same car.
Let's pull a few quotes from TFA, they may be helpful.
Primeau, who said he uses a combination of critical listening skills and spectrum analysis, called voice identification "an exact science" that can help a legal team in court. Yet standards set by the American Board of Recorded Evidence, which Owen once chaired, indicate "there must be at least 10 comparable worlds between two voice samples to reach a minimal decision criteria."
While Zimmerman says more than that many words on his 911 call, the only one heard -- in the distant background -- on the second is a cry for "help."
David Faigman, a professor of law at the University of California-Hastings and an expert on the admissibility of scientific evidence, said courts and the overall scientific community have mixed opinions about the reliability of such "voiceprint" analysis.
...and...
Still, he said, it wouldn't be too hard for Zimmerman's attorneys to find an audio expert to offer an opposing opinion. "These expert witnesses come out of the woodwork when money is concerned," he said.
As I'm sure these 'experts' did, when CNN offered them the big bucks. ;-)
At any rate, this analysis seems far from definitive, I'm sure there will be more to come.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Yes, it indicates a pattern of unfamiliar black people wandering suspiciously through a gated community that they don't live in.
If you can prove that Zimmerman had seen unfamiliar white people wandering through his neighborhood and didn't find them suspicious, then you might have found a racist pattern. As it stands, you have not.
You are sorry. You are a sorry excuse for a human being. He deliberately aggravated someone he thought to be dangerous enough to call for police help to deal with. I have as much sympathy for him as a drunk frat member climbing in a tiger cage and poking the cat with a stick until the frat boy is mauled to death. There is no requirement to "cower" while safe. There was a suggestion to *not* directly confront this dangerous person, which he disregarded, no cowering required.
Learn to love Alaska
Ok. I hadn't known that. Of course, looking around for info on that now, it looks like he was a former member of the football since he stopped playing at age 14. Apparently he also specialized in speed. Frankly, in most of the recent pictures of him, he seems to look almost painfully skinny. Frankly, Zimmerman looked a lot more dangerous to me. Add to that his age and experience (as a bouncer, for example) and I pretty much have to say Zimmerman would win in a fight between them. If Zimmerman's claims that Martin attacked him and was trying to take his gun are true, then for Zimmerman to have shot Martin in that situation strongly suggests that Zimmerman did, in fact, win the fight. Otherwise, Martin would have taken his gun away. The fact that Zimmerman had no blood on him also pretty strongly indicates that, no matter how physically close the fight was, when he shot Martin, they were upright and there was distance between them.
I'm not making things up. Nowhere in that post did I even say that Martin knew he had a gun. It sounds to me like you're the one making things up. Of course Zimmerman has made specific claims that Martin was trying to take his gun. If Zimmerman isn't lying, then Martin knew he had gun (as you say, he may not have known it until he got closer). If Zimmerman is lying... well then.
Since when does "hunting someone down" universally "force confrontation"? Firstly, you don't know that he was hunting him down. Evidence (911 call) actually suggests it was a safe-distance following- and that he didn't know where Martin was, at least at one point! WHY do you ignore this???
Well, he followed him in his car, then he got out of his car to look for him on foot, knowing that that Martin had spotted him following him. I think only an idiot would think that such actions are unlikely to lead to a confrontation. You try to catch someone, then you catch them, what comes next? Anyway, the 911 call seems to strongly suggest it wasn't a safe distance following. It shows that Zimmerman ignored police advice not to follow and that he's an all-around over-excitable fool. He didn't know where Martin was, at one point, as you say, then he got out of his car to search for him on foot. Getting out to search on foot is directly contradictory to the idea of safe-distance following.
If you're a minor, being followed around for some unknown reason by some creepy guy with a gun, then you might possibly have good cause to be a bit worried. The conclusion a lot of people might jump to, based on how prevalent it is in the media these days, is that Zimmerman was some sexual predator out to kidnap victims. If Zimmerman's story is 100% true (and it's remarkable the way this guy's story is just being taken at face value) then Martin attacked him when Zimmerman went to use his phone. Given what Zimmerman was wearing (it's possible he was wearing more than what's seen in the police video, of course, but then we would have seen the police carrying his other clothing), it would have been easy to spot that Zimmerman had a gun on him at close range. Depending on how Zimmerman moved to get to his phone, it might have been perfectly reasonable for Martin to assume that Zimmerman was going for his gun (and we're assuming here that Zimmerman wasn't a filthy liar and that he _wasn't_ going for his gun), and therefore to attack him. If he'd then killed Zimmerman, it would have also been his word against a dead man's silence and we'd only have his side of the story, just as we currently only have Zimmerman's side. So, he would have the same defense people are claiming for Zimmerman. The same goes for if he had managed to sneak up behind Zimmerman and kill him with his can of iced tea. If that had happened, we would have an innocent 17 year old, armed only with snack food, against a creepy older man who was inexplicably stalking him and he would have had more right to the "stand your ground" defense than Zimmerman does. I wasn't suggesting that it would have somehow been right. As messed up a person as Zimmerman clearly is, it still would have been a tragedy for him to die over such a misunderstanding.
Filthy racebaiter.
Uh huh. Very reasonable of you. I'm not sure I've even gone into the subject of race at all in all the posts I've made on this article. I think some degree of racial profiling may have played a role in what Zimmerman did. Honestly, I actually think age discrimination probably played as much of a role. These crazy-fanatical "law and order" types often seem to really hate kids. The fact that we live in a world that invented The Mosquito (high-frequency tone generator intended to drive young people away from an area) speaks volumes about that. It speaks volumes about your biases that you feel a need to label me as a race-baiter just because I think that someone who has, by his own admission, committed at least manslaughter should face trial for it.
Simply brandishing a gun is typically enough to stop an unarmed opponent.
Only if you do so before the physical attack begins. Brandishing can also seriously ESCALATE a situation. Not to mention that Zimmerman's reputation in the community would be badly tarnished if he pulled a gun on everybody he followed and his CWP likely revoked.
As a CWP holder, the only reason I would take my gun out is if I feel that there is a good possibility that I am going to have to use it. Until then I use my brain and words to defuse a situation.
For someone who knows even the basics on how to conceal, it's hard to tell for certain is someone is carrying. The myrad of holsters available makes that a simple matter of shopping around. Martin probably did not know that Zimmerman was armed. A Kel-Tec PF-9 is stupid easy to conceal, given that it was designed for CCW.
Stalking someone is often a prelude to assault, robbery and/or murder. In any case, it is not only a provocation, but a direct threat to the subjects safety.
Wrong on so many levels it is not even funny. Following someone is neither provocation or a direct threat to ones safety, it is suspicious, nothing more. Neither side is in the wrong so long as neither is trespassing. Whoever strikes the first blow is the aggressor.
Try this thought experiment: You are at a bar and you see a women you think you like, but haven't worked up the courage to talk to her. She leaves and you follow her on food at a distance to the bar down the block. You still don't have the courage to talk to her before she leaves again, you follow her down the block at a distance further before giving up and going home.
Now, was what you were doing provocation or threatening? No, it was suspicious, nothing more.
While it does not give a right to attack, hindering someone's movements such that they DO have to pass through you or near you would, under most courts, be at your fault.
What court? No, whoever threw the first blow is the one who is the aggressor. Plenty of people are in jail because the other side egged them into throwing the first punch. While a defense attorney may be able to convince the jury into returning with a "not guilty" on account of the other side egging you on, it will still be the person who threw the first punch in the defendants seat.
The fact that you have to argue for the right to stalk and threaten other people while defending someone who stalked and ultimately killed a youth is sickening to say the least.
Repeating this does not make it the truth. Cry all you want about it, it won't change reality. Stalking is the repeated following and harassing of another person. This was not stalking and the cops would hang up on you for trying to claim it as such.
So? What the fuck does that matter? Martin was WWB (Walking While Black). Zimmerman was NWW (Nosy While White). Neither warranted a physical altercation, but Martin chose to start one, and paid a dear price for it.
There is ABSOLUTELY no reason to say that Zimmerman was WRONG to confront Martin. He would be ENTIRELY in his rights to do so. And Martin was NOT justified in physically attacking him. Being nosy is NOT a crime.
But you claim that he was supposed to stay in his safe cozy vehicle while the suspicious black dude wandered around the neighborhood. You're a fucking idot.
If someone shoots an unarmed person, until they have been cleared by a court of law, they should be behind bars.
Is that difficult to understand?
There is no such thing as an "unarmed person". My brothers friend was beaten into a 5 week coma by an "unarmed person". If you have working arms and legs, you are capable of doing harm.
It also has to do with flight risk. On top of the lack of clear evidence of murder they could have determined that Zimmerman was a low flight risk.
Most modern libertarians are functional anarchists.
By that standard, most modern liberals are functional communists.
/So does that mean that most modern Buddhists are functional Presbyterians?
//and that most modern Mac users are functional COBOL programers?
///coming up with these is kinda fun.
No, it is totally not. Zimmerman had committed no crime.
And neither had Martin. Going out in the rain with a hood is no crime.
If anything, I think Zimmerman's behaviour (following someone at a distance with a gun) is much more suspicious than Martin's behaviour (going out in the rain with a hood and looking around as you're walking). There may be circumstances that have not surfaced yet, but given what we know, I think Martin had much more valid reason to be afraid of Zimmerman than vice versa.
Following someone is not a crime. If Martin thought that Zimmerman's behavior was suspicious, he should have dialled 911 to report the suspicious behavior.
Dialling 911 is not a prerequisite for being allowed to use force in self-defence, nor is it a legal defence if you use too much force. You're not expected to stop and dial 911 when someone walks up and threatens you with a gun.
Assaulting someone is a crime, and Martin perpetrated a crime against someone who happened to have the means to defend himself from a violent attacker. Good for him.
And you know this how? So far, the witnesses are contradicting each other, and the only thing we know for sure is that Zimmerman was the one who initiated the conflict, while Martin was just bringing home some junk food.
You're basically saying you can walk up and shoot anyone you want, and as long as there are no eye witnesses to contradict your story, and you have some minor scratches, you can blame it on self-defence. Even if the other person had no reason in the world to start a fight.
I'm sorry Zimmerman isn't psychic and able to predict whether someone will commit a crime, or assault him.
And I'm sorry Martin is dead, for doing nothing else than walking in the rain wearing a hood and looking around "suspiciously". Regardless of who dealt the first physical blow, Zimmerman was the one who cornered Martin and provoked the fight. For no good reason.
There is ABSOLUTELY no reason to say that Zimmerman was WRONG to confront Martin. He would be ENTIRELY in his rights to do so. And Martin was NOT justified in physically attacking him. Being nosy is NOT a crime.
So it's perfectly OK for a black man to confront a white man who walks around "suspiciously" in his neighbourhood, shoot him, and then claim the white man attacked him first (for no apparent reason)? And people would immediately leap to the black man's defence, just as you do with Zimmerman?
Yeah, right.
I think it's more that he looked at the case, didn't think he could get a conviction, and didn't want to spend any more time and resources on a fruitless (to him) case when there is plenty of other work to be done.
It's different when you have a dead body. Possible manslaughter or murder has a high priority, even if a conviction is uncertain.
It's not what we know, it's what Zimmerman knew and could bet his life on. That's the standard that the police used, and this is a perfect example of why many people don't grok the decision police and prosecutors routinely make.
What about Martin's fears? If someone follows him around and then confronts him with a gun, doesn't he have the right to defend himself? For all he knows, the man with a gun may be about to shoot him.
I think your reasoning only shows how differently the standards are applied to different people.
No, nothing is definitive yet, but almost all the facts so far look bad for Zimmerman. It's rather odd that the DA is showing so little interest in investigating a possible homicide.
I would not be surprised of that gated community has a requirement underaged visitors must be escorted, they generally do here in CA.
If so, where was the adult?
Yet another example of how people go out of their way to make assumptions that put the blame on Martin instead of Zimmerman.
Except Zimmerman hadn't actually threatened him. SYG only applies to the threat or use of actual force. Stalking does not qualify.
Obviously, we only have Zimmerman's version of the story, since Martin is dead. But when you find someone with a smoking gun standing over a dead body, you don't take their story at face value. You ask yourself questions like, "Why would Martin attack someone without reason, when he hadn't done anything wrong?" and "Why did Zimmerman go out of his way to find reasons to follow the boy?"
None of this proves Zimmerman is guilty of anything, but it's more than enough reason to investigate and prosecute a possible homicide.
You can't just walk up to anyone with a gun and expect them to treat you like a cop. To them, you're the potential criminal, and they're only defending themselves.
Because the whites declared equality was achieved, and the minorities know that to be a lie. The whites are causing the race war by defending the racists like Zimmerman who killed the boy because he was Black.
Or, possibly, it's a class thing. The people who have money and connections know how to (ab)use the system and look out for each other, and it just happens that there are whites than blacks among them.
In this case, the white guy who is excused for killing someone also happens to be the son of a judge.
I'm more concerned that someone under the presumption of innocence is instead being tried in the court of public opinion, which obeys no law and follows no procedure. Regardless of the facts of the matter, I would almost rather have my day in court and be acquitted than have my life torn to pieces in a three-ring media circus.
That's all people are asking for. A fair trial. But so far, the DA has shown little interest in investigating and prosecuting a possible homicide.
Following someone is neither provocation or a direct threat to ones safety, it is suspicious, nothing more. Neither side is in the wrong so long as neither is trespassing. Whoever strikes the first blow is the aggressor.
Not if there are other reasons for either party to feel threatened. It's easy to see how Martin could believe his life was in danger if Zimmerman, for example, pulled out his gun, or was acting aggressively, and be justified in striking the first blow.
Given the dead body, Zimmerman's own story, and conflicting eye witnesses, I think it'd be a very good idea to bring the case to trial so a jury can decide. If nothing else, it will put the facts on the table and disspell any suspicions of corruption.
None of those three points are criminal, but they should weigh in when determining if Zimmerman was responsible for Martin's death. Well, I don't know about Florida law, but where I live, they'd likely be weighed in.
That's sad. Prosecutor's should follow a common procedure, not prosecute according to their own whims and preferences.
If Martin had killed Zimmerman, there'd only be Martin's side of the story, and he could easily claim that Zimmerman threatened him first. It wouldn't matter if there were witnesses who saw him on top of Zimmerman, slamming his head into the concrete.
See, it cuts both ways.
Unless, of course, the law treats black people and sons of judges differently.
But you claim that he was supposed to stay in his safe cozy vehicle while the suspicious black dude wandered around the neighborhood.
Yeah, every Nigger is a suspicious Nigger, and a dead Nigger is a good start. But yes, if you are safe in a car, it is criminally stupid to then depart safety to confront an unarmed person you believe dangerous and then kill them.
Learn to love Alaska
Yes, lets let the man who killed a 17 year old whose worse crime ever is possession of pot walk.
I mean Zimmerman has to have his nose clean right? Besides the fact he has been charged on two occasions of resisting arrest, and domestic violence. He must be allowed to walk free.
I may be wrong but from what I understand, they even gave him his gun back.
A man shot a 17 year old. The man weighed more then the 17 y/o by what 100 lbs? The man had a gun and history of violence, The 17 y/o had candy.
HOW THE HELL DO YOU DO THE MENTAL GYMNASTICS TO DETERMINE HE SHOULD WALK FREE WITHOUT FACING A JUDGE?
I don't want the guy strung up. I just want to make sure he faces a judge and jury for these actions.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Sikque claimed that by zimmerman's account, SYG justified Martin attacking. I was just pointing out that he was wrong. Your post was correct but irrelevant to this particular subthread.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
If someone follows him around and then confronts him with a gun, doesn't he have the right to defend himself? For all he knows, the man with a gun may be about to shoot him.
The gun was concealed until the very point at which Zimmerman drew it and fired. There is no reason to believe otherwise. It was a gun which was designed to be carried concealed; there is no reason to believe that Martin would have known that Zimmerman was armed.
At the end of his conversation with his girlfriend, his words to Zimmerman do not sound like what you would say to someone who has cornered you with a gun. They sound like what you would say to a nosy guy who's been following you, before you beat his ass to teach him a lesson. Which is exactly what Martin then proceeded to attempt to do.
Furthermore, unless Zimmerman is a complete fucking moron, he knows that brandishing a gun is a crime unless use of deadly force is warranted. As he had a concealed carry weapons permit, he would have known this. And he would have known that he would lose the license the instant he did something foolish with his gun. Again: I have no reason to believe that the gun was not concealed during the entire confrontation, right up to the point where its use was deemed justified by Zimmerman.
So.. we arrest him and set bail and set him free. The only difference being that he spends ten minutes getting processed and has to either find himself without the use of a large amount of cash, or post a bond and suffer usury interest.
If it was self defense, how would that be justice? If he's not a flight risk.. why bother?
Also, how long does it take to gather evidence for a conviction? If they held a trial the day after the incident, they'd probably have to acquit - he's got a witness, after all, and there wouldn't be much time to gather evidence and interview other witnesses. If he is guilty of murder and not self defense, how would that be justice?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
So.. we arrest him and set bail and set him free. The only difference being that he spends ten minutes getting processed and has to either find himself without the use of a large amount of cash, or post a bond and suffer usury interest. If it was self defense, how would that be justice?
I don't know about Florida, but in my state, if you are arrested and charged with a crime, and successfully argue self-defense in the court, the state will compensate you for both legal fees and other expenses associated with or otherwise incurred by your arrest (yes, including "loss of time").
If he's not a flight risk.. why bother?
In this case I'm not concerned with him being a flight risk so much so as him being paranoid and trigger happy. It's a dangerous combination, and I wouldn't want to see that guy shoot someone else. Especially now that he probably actually have people stalking him to verbally abuse him, and God knows what he might interpret as a threat sufficient to pull the gun again.
Yup. Which definition could also apply just as well to Matin, if only he was alive to make it.
If only we had a system in which people could be presented with the facts and have the ability to question those presenting the facts to determine their validity. Oh, well.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Once I saw a guy get thrown to the ground and punched in the face about 10 times, his head bouncing off the pavement, then left there knocked out.
The next day he looked fine. Just because someone gets beaten, doesn't mean there will always be noticeable bruises.
How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
And had Zimmerman followed the 9/11 operator's instructions, this never would have happened. He was told to stand down.
Frankly 'stand your ground' applies to Treyvon. He was followed and tailed, stalked if you will. He was confronted. Since according to Zimmerman's people this was a high crime area, there is reasonable grounds to be wary and 'stand his ground'. Given Zimmerman's arrest history it's clearly evident he has violent tendencies - so there's no way you can prove he didn't strike first.
If Zimmerman created the situation, there is simply no way he can use self-defense as an argument.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Indeed, FOX news is much more frequent with this type of blatant falsification of news. It's actual 'news' when someone BESIDES them does it...
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
You are effectively claiming that the police looked into the future and made false statements on the report for a crime that wasn't controversial at the time,
Because the police would only make false statements if they thought the case would end up being controversial?
Seems to me it's more likely they'd feel willing to doctor things to get the result they wanted if they thought it wouldn't be controversial, because "controversial" would imply "subjected to greater scrutiny".
The enemies of Democracy are
You have, apparently, never been in a all-in fight.
It takes precisely one well-placed hit to incapacitate someone. The human fist can knock someone out cold with a single blow. Most people have a very "fragile jaw" and the correct hit to the front or sides of the jaw can leave them, if not unconscious, delirious with pain.
A blow at the right angle to the nose can kill someone instantly.
The fact is that your life is in danger as long as your opponent is within proximity of you and capable of inflicting harm. For instance, it has repeatedly been shown that someone with a knife can reach and impale a person 25 feet away before that (trained) person can draw a holstered, non-concealed weapon (and officers are trained with this knowledge) and bring it to bear. If an assailant is still mobile within throwing distance, with obvious intent of harm, your life is quite threatened, be assured.
Now, whether Zimmerman was the actual antagonist and 'attacker' is another story. He may have started it then gotten himself in for more than he'd bargained. Judging by the man's history, that doesn't appear to be the case.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
"Equality" of privilege has been not only been met, but it's been surpassed. You're familiar with affirmative action?
Equality of capability is another thing entirely. Those are things typically earned. The Irish in this country managed to pull themselves up fairly well, and they've only been here as long as the slave Africans and their descendants have been and were treated roughly the same as the blacks.
If your complaint is that blacks don't get treated like whites on average, maybe looking at the average demographic behavior of said 'races' is in order.
There is absolutely no evidence even suggesting Zimmerman killed him because he was black. Suggesting it is a statement of reverse racism: you don't like the fact that a black man was killed (and he was a man, not a boy) by a non-black (mixed Hispanic), but because blacks are a minority (just barely) the killer was obviously motivated by race hatred.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
"Equality" of privilege has been not only been met, but it's been surpassed. You're familiar with affirmative action?
Yes, I am familiar with affirmative action. That's the quota system where a sub-standard C student gets into Yale because of his heritage. George W Bush being a prime example. Strangely though, a person directly helped by affirmative action on multiple occasions is vehemently against Affirmative Action.
There is absolutely no evidence even suggesting Zimmerman killed him because he was black.
Sure there is. Zimmerman called 911 for almost 10 other people. He never called in a suspicious white or Hispanic person. He only ever called in suspicious black people. That's evidence that there was a racial motive to Zimmerman's stalking and execution of Martin.
Learn to love Alaska
I have seen enough to realize that the number of high school kids who can actually do any action hero style fighting is practically zero. It's all black eyes and bloody noses. Shoot them in the leg and they think they're going to die.
but on it's most underlying level, an unarmed boy was shot by a large adult with a gun and an arrest wasn't made.
Lets be clear... It was an unarmed boy that the man went to the effort of following down the street against the express suggestions of the 911 dispatcher that was telling him he should not follow him. He WENT TO EXTRA EFFORT to follow the boy and shoot him.
The fact that he has ANY injury means that his story adds up.
No, it doesn't. The fact that he has an injury only means that there was a fight. It doesn't mean he's telling the truth, and to think that it does mean that would be idiotic.
What I know currently about the Martin Case. A 6'2" - 6'4" Child, Kid, Young Adult, Teenager weighing 140-170lbs was shot when minding own business with candy/bashing man's head into concrete. He was shot by a Racist/White/Hispanic/Mentor to African Americans who was stalking/gunning down in cold blood/walking back to truck when jumped. Martin never got into any trouble/had female jewelry in bag with screwdriver/suspended for drugs. Zimmerman was not touched/treated for head gashes and broken nose. All of these "Facts" are from reputable news sources have been repeated on this Forum. Either we are talking about 15 different murder/self defense/man slaughter cases or a lot of so called journalist/politicians/bloggers are pretending to know what they are talking about. There is less diametrically opposed evidence/opinion in alien visitation/Global Warming/Best Linux Distro than this case.
Zimmerman: Yes
911: OK we don't need you to do that
Zimmerman: OK
He was told to stop following Martin. If he had followed those instructions NONE of this would have happened. Period.
Residue in a backpack does not indicate violence in any way. Resisting arrest and having a restraining order taken out against you DOES indicate violence.
If you don't like being stalked, guess what recourse you have? None.
You seem to not want to apply 'Stand your ground' to anyone except Zimmerman. The statute is "If you feel threatened". It's dark, someone is following you and gets out of their vehicle to chase you. You wouldn't feel threatened? Treyvon is full allowed to 'Stand his ground' against this person.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
The worst part about this is that the DA office doesn't seem to understand that "Stand Your Ground" is just an affirmative defense against a crime, not a magic spell that means someone can't be arrested.
The worst part about this is that the DA office doesn't seem to understand that "Stand Your Ground" is just an affirmative defense against a crime, not a magic spell that means someone can't be arrested.
What we learn from Florida laws is that murder is legal.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Walking up to someone and asking what they're doing is not a crime either. There's nothing on the phone call suggesting who attacked first, as far as I know.
No reason to start a fight? A nosy white dude was following him. Martin's girlfriend had the right advice: run away. He'd have been free and clear if he'd have stayed away, but he decided more macho actions were in order.
Ok, I don't know your culture. Where I live, people (black or white) usually aren't so offended by someone following them that they go and start a fight with them. Sure, it happens, but it's not the default assumption. Is it so common in Florida (or in the USA in general) that everybody assumes it's what must have happened?
Good point. But there's still no proof that Martin attacked first, since witnesses are contradicting each other, and the witness who the police said supported Zimmerman's version claims to have been asked leading questions.
It's quite possible that Martin turned back to teach Zimmerman a lesson. but it seems just as possible that Zimmerman attacked first because he was overly suspicious and overreacted to the angry black guy.
Anyway, I'm not saying anyone should be judged in the court of public opinion, just that the police didn't show much interest in investigating a possible homicide before the media started hounding them...
The evidence suggests that the instigator was Martin. This includes the end of his phone call, which implied physical contact, with nothing to suggest that Zimmerman was the perpetrator. Nothing like "get your hands off me" or "don't touch me" or anything. Just "why are you following me".
Well, that doesn't imply physical violence. It's circumstantial, at best.
Since there's no clear evidence either way, I think it's justified to arrest both of them. Unfortunately, Martin is dead, so the only one we can arrest is Zimmerman.
Why would he? One witness with a clear-cut view of what happened claiming that he cold-cocked Martin would land his ass in prison for a long time. I'd be willing to believe Zimmerman might be a little hot-headed but not completely stupid. Martin, on the other hand, was a rebellious teenager. Without extenuating evidence, I'd sooner believe that Martin instigated the fight.
My impression is that Zimmerman wasn't hot-headed, but a little paranoid. Maybe he thought he was in more danger than he was, and that his attack would seem justified to an outside observer. In lack of clear evidence either way, I think the police dismissed the case too quickly.
The police need to have evidence before they put Zimmerman to trial for a crime. If they don't have evidence, he walks. And then he's protected from double jeopardy.
Maybe the police didn't have enough evidence to keep him in arrest, but I think it's strange that they were content with basing their report on one witness that they claimed supported Zimmerman's version, and who later claimed to have been asked leading questions, when there were contradicting witnesses on site.
The DA then decided to not put the case in front of a grand jury based on the police report. If people hadn't started complaining about how the case was handled, I'm not sure the police and the DA would've done anything more.
Sure, it may just be sloppy police work and not racism, like the liberal media tends to assume, but still.
They do usually work by leaving large amounts of blood over a person's clothes, though. It's possible that the nose was painfully broken without bleeding, but there's no way Zimmerman could have received large gashes to his head requiring first aid without then having a bandage on his head and blood on his clothes.
The police CCTV showed neither of those things were the case.
Are you?
The existing "Castle Doctrine" already provides for self-defense with lethal force, so the "make my day" laws are a false solution to the problem of prosecutorial misconduct.
That and they don't even work as advertized when somebody actually defends themselves. At least the NRA showed up with a bushel of $10,000 an hour lawyers to defend the guys right to defend himself.
Oh wait, they didn't. Funny how often that happens.
Which they obviously do in this case based on Zimmerman's on 911 calls alone.
The local officers that didn't take Zimmerman's clothes as evidence, who didn't arrest Zimmerman on suspicion of homicide, who performed a toxicology test on the dead kid but not the shooter, who took down Zimmerman's story of his injuries but didn't photograph them?
Blame starts with local law enforcement.
It's either rationalized racism or profound ignorance, take your pick.
Anonymous Cow-Tard thinks we are too credulous. Am I the only one here who's ever been protected and/or served?
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
But none of those hypotheticals apply in the case from Zimmerman's 911 calls alone, which established that he was in his car following a pedestrian who was armed with some tea and skittles.
Are you seriously suggesting that you can initiate a confrontation with an innocent person, kill them, and not be arrested under suspicion of murder? Go ahead and offer whatever hypotheticals you want for justified homicides - none of them will come close to what happened in this case.
The dude took a gun to a fistfight. Guilty of second degree murder, unless there's something special in this FL law that exempts white people because blacks can inherently kill them with bare knuckles.
Knucklehead.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
The way trials are these days, I'd rather have the police get all the evidence they can, one way or the other, prior to making an arrest.
Zimmerman shouldn't have his life fucked up any worse than it already is until there's enough evidence to reasonably convict him, and there's no way any of us can speculate enough for that evidence to just pop into existence. It's a rough, brutal story, but none of us are close enough to it to truly know what happened. If, indeed, he did murder Martin, it will be better for the prosecution to have all their ducks in a row prior to officially charging Zimmerman for murder anyway, and he's not going anywhere in the meantime.
If the investigators do decide there's insufficient evidence, or evidence of self-defense, I believe they have the responsibility to report it to the media; this case is way, way too volatile.
While your link has since been taken down* this one is still up, and provides pretty clear reasoning that an arrest wasn't immediately made for legal and liability reasons:
http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf
I'd love to see that police report, but with that now-dead link and the pretty clear statement that the arrest didn't happen immediately was because evidence against Zimmerman hadn't been accumulated yet. Basically, they let him go based on his statement because they had no evidence to the contrary yet, and didn't want to A) be held liable for a wrongful arrest, B) screw the case up later on, and most certainly C) preventing a potential A from causing a for-sure B.
Makes sense to me, and my gut tells me we'll see a trial in this case. Still, it's just my gut. None of us can know the truth except Zimmerman and (hopefully, eventually) the investigators.
*From the Sanford, FL website: "The office of the State Attorney, 4th Judicial Circuit, State Attorney Angela Corey has requested that the City of Sanford remove all reports, videos and audio pertaining to the Martin/Zimmerman case from the website. Their office has provided legal justification for the action and they believe further access to the information will have an adverse effect on their efforts to come to a resolution to this investigation."
This info implies an investigation is proceeding, and the State Attorneys' office doesn't want to saturate a potential jury pool, although that's just speculation, too.
Ah. I did find this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/86948628/Trayvon-Martin-Police-Report
The officer on scene (Timothy Smith) indicates Zimmerman did have injuries and was treated for them by the SFD, but that was the extent of his involvement; this officer never questioned Zimmerman. That police report just isn't very meaty. It's also VERY interesting that the second officer on scene (Ricardo Ayala) doesn't mention Zimmerman's injuries; not even once. If I take the liberty to speculate on this, like everybody else seems to, it does seem as if they minor enough to go unnoticed, or at least unmentioned, by at least one of the officers arriving upon a homicide crime scene. Makes it seem like they'd be minor enough to not be apparent on film, too.
This does make one wonder, though... since the only weapons Zimmerman had to fear were Martin's hands, how serious did his personal injuries need to be to "prove" his "It was either him or me!" defense? Can I shoot someone for socking me in the mouth once and call it self-defense? Yeah, not so much. But, speculation time is over. I don't know the truth; none of really do.