Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

[Imdanny]

Gypsy, huh? How could the boy been this man's assailant when the man was told by police not to pursue, did anyway, then while the boy was trying to walk fast away, later from what I read pleading for his life, killed him? Do we want people who "feel" threatened hunting and killing children in the street? Of course the community and public are offended.

 

[Imdanny]

I am beside myself over this case.... This guy should have been arrested long ago! He took an unarmed boy's life...and then hid behind a law that is not clear... Add on to that I live on Florida... Thank God the Govenor Rick Scott got involved and appointed an outside prosecutor to take this case on... Angela Corey is awesome... I trust her to be sure justice is served. This child died for No Good Reason... Ok. I will climb down from my soap box...

I was born and lived a lot of my life there. I don't know what the "stand your ground" law says because I've been away a long time but I can't imagine it means pursuit in the street when the police told you not to. And no, not an entirely new situation sadly.

 

[Imdanny]

Gypsy, your second post (I'm sorry, my phone won't let me quote, edit, and post the way I need to)- the boy MIGHT have turned around WHILE he was fleeing? The shooter MIGHT Reasonably have thought the boy had a gun AND might turn around? So he had to run after him and kill him? Should people be shot in the back because they might turn around? The public isn't stupid. They know there is something wrong here.

 

[Gypsy]

Gypsy, your second post (I'm sorry, my phone won't let me quote, edit, and post the way I need to)- the boy MIGHT have turned around WHILE he was fleeing? The shooter MIGHT Reasonably have thought the boy had a gun AND might turn around? So he had to run after him and kill him? Should people be shot in the back because they might turn around? The public isn't stupid. They know there is something wrong here.

Danny, as far as I know the boy was not shot in the back. From what I gather that information has not been released. What happens if you find out he was shot in the front. Does that change things for you?

I never said the child was shot while running away. I'm saying the man said very clearly that he was pursuing the child. He did not say WHY he was doing so. He may have thought the child was a threat of some sort. I don't know... BUT HE felt that he had a reasonable reason to do so. The example I gave is just that-- an example of a reason why someone might pursue. I didn't say that's the actual reason why THIS guy pursued.

Ultimately:
What matters at trial is whether or not a Jury agrees that his reasoning was reasonable. And that's what the prosecutor has to decide BEFORE deciding to pursue or not pursue a trial: how credible is the man's reasoning for his actions, including pursuit.

I never said the public is stupid. I said they are ignorant. And that the sensationalism of the media has convicted this man with misleading reports of what happened that make it seem the case is a lot easier than it is, which is putting undue pressure on the prosecutors office who doesn't have sensationalism on his side at trial but rather only has the truth and credible evidence. And it sounds like he doesn't have enough of either to make a solid case for conviction. Regardless of how the media spins it.

 

[gammygam]

I simply do not understand those that are decrying the public discussion and outcry. You can argue law, standards of proof, and reasonableness - but it is difficult to get around the objective facts. An unarmed boy was shot by a man that was following him, for no good reason, after he was told by a 911 operator that he did not need to follow the individual. Those facts alone make this one which should have resulted in a thorough investigation. And it did not. Regardless of whether Zimmerman is legally guilty of a crime, what happened was absolutely awful and horrifying.

That being said, I don't think anyone is arguing that we have all the facts or that Zimmerman should be put on trial tomorrow. The events of that evening were not properly investigated and that is being remedied, finally. Had this case not gotten the publicity it did, I feel a travesty of justice would have occurred.

And of course facts matter. As do the relevant legal standards and procedures, of which Mr. Zimmerman will undoubtedly and rightfully take full advantage of.

I do want to clarify a couple things - double jeopardy does not attach until a jury is empaneled. As those that have been involved in any form of litigation, criminal or otherwise, know that takes a significant amount of time, despite the right to a speedy trial. And although I'm a bit rusty on my crim pro, I believe a person can be arrested or detained for a crime more than once. And of course, an investigation has absolutely no double jeopardy implications, either.

And the reasonable standard you've been referring to is an objective standard. What would an everyman do in that situation? I am not familiar with the nuances of the stand your ground law, but I can't imagine that it allows one to threaten a person/follow[harass an individual and then murder them because you fear for your life.

Ditto here! You pretty much echo'd every thought I had. Btw, hi, I didn't realize you still posted! I used to chat with you say back in the day

 

[Gypsy]

Gypsy, huh? How could the boy been this man's assailant when the man was told by police not to pursue, did anyway, then while the boy was trying to walk fast away, later from what I read pleading for his life, killed him? Do we want people who "feel" threatened hunting and killing children in the street? Of course the community and public are offended.

Danny. All your facts are wrong.

The boy went away. The man lost track of him. When asked if he was pursuing the boy the man said yes, and the dispatcher replied: "we do not need you to do that." Not: "Stop, stay away" not "let the kid go" or even "why?" just... "we do not need you to do that." The man kept walking, and it was clear from the conversation that he was STILL walking around looking for the kid and the dispatcher at NO time, and with plenty of opportunity to do so, said"Do not pursue the kid." In fact the man TOLD the dispatcher that he did not know where he would be when the cops arrive. Again, the dispatcher did not say, "stay safe in one place". Nope.

As for pleading for his life. Nope, wrong again. Witnesses said someone was asking for help-- not mercy, not for their lives. Help. The Shooter claims it was him who was asking for help. The boy is dead and NONE of the witnesses KNOW who it was that was asking for help. The media has decided it was the boy because it makes for a better story.

Also, there are reports that the child attacked the man. And the man had injuries that support this claim. The man also thought the boy had a gun.

So... see. You put together a string of facts that are all WRONG. Why? Because you believed the media.

Thanks for proving my point though, I appreciate it.

 

[Imdanny]

... is this a trick question?

Here's the full transcript of the call: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html#document/p2/a49098

The dispatcher appears to have been attempting to get a description before Zimmerman went off the rails. I've placed 911 calls: I bet the next step would have been to ask about height, weight, etc., except the paranoid bigot on the other end of the line preempted it.

I do feel like it's a trifle disingenuous to imply race wasn't a factor here. Given that Martin wasn't, oh, peeking in windows or jimmying doors, aside from being black in the gated community, exactly what kind of "suspicious" behavior was he engaging in? The thing that raised suspicion was his not fitting the typical demographic - i.e., belonging to a different ethnicity.

P.S. - We know Zimmerman had a history of racial obsession, abuse, and pretending to be a victim ... right?

The cops were called on me the other day, and they asked me my race. And they were standing right in front of me. That's just a "status category" they need to ask about.

 

[Gypsy]

I simply do not understand those that are decrying the public discussion and outcry. You can argue law, standards of proof, and reasonableness - but it is difficult to get around the objective facts. An unarmed boy was shot by a man that was following him, for no good reason, after he was told by a 911 operator that he did not need to follow the individual. Those facts alone make this one which should have resulted in a thorough investigation. And it did not. Regardless of whether Zimmerman is legally guilty of a crime, what happened was absolutely awful and horrifying.

That being said, I don't think anyone is arguing that we have all the facts or that Zimmerman should be put on trial tomorrow. The events of that evening were not properly investigated and that is being remedied, finally. Had this case not gotten the publicity it did, I feel a travesty of justice would have occurred.

And of course facts matter. As do the relevant legal standards and procedures, of which Mr. Zimmerman will undoubtedly and rightfully take full advantage of.

I do want to clarify a couple things - double jeopardy does not attach until a jury is empaneled. As those that have been involved in any form of litigation, criminal or otherwise, know that takes a significant amount of time, despite the right to a speedy trial. And although I'm a bit rusty on my crim pro, I believe a person can be arrested or detained for a crime more than once. And of course, an investigation has absolutely no double jeopardy implications, either.

And the reasonable standard you've been referring to is an objective standard. What would an everyman do in that situation? I am not familiar with the nuances of the stand your ground law, but I can't imagine that it allows one to threaten a person/follow[harass an individual and then murder them because you fear for your life.

Ditto here! You pretty much echo'd every thought I had. Btw, hi, I didn't realize you still posted! I used to chat with you say back in the day

I don't know if the boy was shot for 'no good reason'. But I assume the man has A reason and I don't presume to know what it is.

Reasonable is an objective standard. And unfortunately the "stand your ground laws" are vague enough that their is an argument that can be made that the shooter was within his rights to pursue the kid. I'm not saying that I agree with these laws. I don't. I'm just saying that the defense might have a valid defense. And this is something the prosecutor would know better than I would.

And yes, double jeopardy only attaches to a trail, not to an investigation OR even arrest.

I am not "decrying" discussion and outcry. I am decrying people saying that the prosecutors office is OBVIOUSLY corrupt and racial motivated just because they have not charged and arrested this man and taken him to trail yet. When there is no evidence of this.

Below is my point. Do you disagree?

My arguments are: I don't think that the prosecutor is being lax at all. There is no proof of that. And the media and public pressuring the prosecution to a trial when there is insufficient evidence to convict is a BAD THING. There is plenty of proof that the media and public perceive this, but no actual proof that it's based on reality. And a special prosecutor being appointed only shows the the governor understands the power of the media. Not that there is actually some justification for it.

And: I do not see that race played any part in this. Unless you are talking about the dispatcher.

Yes, in America race is a big deal. But Zimmerman is a half latino man. He is NOT America. We have no idea what his motivations were. But I BET the prosecutor does. And if it was as clear cut as a hate crime the man would be awaiting trial RIGHT NOW. So it's NOT that clear cut.

I think more investigation is a good thing. But not pressure on the office of the prosecutor to try a man with insufficient evidence.

 

[Gypsy]

... is this a trick question?

Here's the full transcript of the call: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html#document/p2/a49098

The dispatcher appears to have been attempting to get a description before Zimmerman went off the rails. I've placed 911 calls: I bet the next step would have been to ask about height, weight, etc., except the paranoid bigot on the other end of the line preempted it.

I do feel like it's a trifle disingenuous to imply race wasn't a factor here. Given that Martin wasn't, oh, peeking in windows or jimmying doors, aside from being black in the gated community, exactly what kind of "suspicious" behavior was he engaging in? The thing that raised suspicion was his not fitting the typical demographic - i.e., belonging to a different ethnicity.

P.S. - We know Zimmerman had a history of racial obsession, abuse, and pretending to be a victim ... right?

The cops were called on me the other day, and they asked me my race. And they were standing right in front of me. That's just a "status category" they need to ask about.

Did you READ the transcript or listen to the tapes Danny? Really?

They went like this.
There is a suspicious character outside.
Is he black or Hispanic.

Who is the racist there?

Not: "Can you describe this person".

Nope. Just "Is he black or Hispanic"

 

[Imdanny]

Gypsy, no, my question about being shot in the back was MY hypothetical. And I'M saying the kid was shot after fleeing. On the first page you said the man MIGHT have thought IF HE TURNED HIS BACK the kid might turn around. We can reasonably assume a Person who believed they had "information" they were in mortal danger wouldn't turn their back.

 

[Gypsy]

Gypsy, no, my question about being shot in the back was MY hypothetical. And I'M saying the kid was shot after fleeing. On the first page you said the man MIGHT have thought IF HE TURNED HIS BACK the kid might turn around and shoot him. We can reasonably assume a Person who believed they had "information" they were in mortal danger would not turn their back.

Edit this please. I have no clue what you are saying.

I added what I THINK you are trying to say, which still doesn't make sense to me, in red.

What are you trying to say Danny.

 

[Imdanny]

Certainly. I'll have access to a "real" cOmputer in a couple hours and I'll do it then

 

[Gypsy]

Certainly. I'll have access to a "real" cOmputer in a couple hours and I'll do it then

A the touchpad. I hate those. Look forward to it then.

 

[Mayk]

I am beside myself over this case.... This guy should have been arrested long ago! He took an unarmed boy's life...and then hid behind a law that is not clear... Add on to that I live on Florida... Thank God the Govenor Rick Scott got involved and appointed an outside prosecutor to take this case on... Angela Corey is awesome... I trust her to be sure justice is served. This child died for No Good Reason... Ok. I will climb down from my soap box...

It doesn't matter that the boy was unarmed.

It doesn't.

All that matters is whether or not the shooter reasonably believed the boy was armed and that his life was in danger as a result. I'm not HAPPY about that. But it's not a reality I'm avoiding either.

As for running after the kid. Again, I'm not HAPPY about it. But there is that law, stand your ground, AND the man MIGHT HAVE (I'm talking about reasonable assumptions that the jury will be asked to evaluate) that the boy was running away only to come back when the guys back was turned and shoot him, or something. Whether or not that's a reasonable assumption will be up to a jury and will depend on what other facts surround such a belief that MIGHT justify the guy running after the kid. Again, it's a reality I'm not avoiding. I'm definitely not happy about it.

It's all a matter of "what information did the shooter have" and "what did he reasonably believe as a result of that information" whether that information was right or wrong is largely irrelevant.

Here's my problem Gypsy... "Stand your ground". Doesn't mean give chase. It's meant to provide you the opportunity to protect yourself if threatened. The 911 operator asked the shooter not to give chase. He's NOT an officer. He was a neighborhood watch captain...a citizen.... I watched an interview of the creator of the law and he said the circumstances in this case were stretching the proper intent of the law... That man was not being threatened from a kid running from him...

 

[Imdanny]

As for running after the kid. Again, I'm not HAPPY about it. But there is that law, stand your ground, AND the man MIGHT HAVE (I'm talking about reasonable assumptions that the jury will be asked to evaluate) that the boy was running away only to come back when the guys back was turned and shoot him, or something. Whether or not that's a reasonable assumption will be up to a jury and will depend on what other facts surround such a belief that MIGHT justify the guy running after the kid. Again, it's a reality I'm not avoiding. I'm definitely not happy about it.

Gypsy, I love my iPhone, don't get me wrong, but it's convinced me I don't want to buy an iPad. I mean you type an "M" instead of an "N", finally, and then accidentally hit the back button and erase it. It's ridiculous. I try to quote posts, and I end up staring at the middle of the text of a long post, desperately trying to make the text scroll down, so that I can anything, to no avail.

Anyway, I was referring to the above.

Let me start by saying again I don't know what that law says.

Having said that, it doesn't make sense to me to say that, "...the boy was running away only to come back when the guys back was turned and shoot him, or something." I realize you are not saying this did or did not happen, and also that you're saying whether this is or is not a reasonable assumption will be up to a jury and will depend on what other facts surround such a belief, as you said.

However, I plain can't "get with" the idea that the man could think that the boy was running away, and might come back and shoot him, especially considering it's possible that maybe, according to your post, the man might have thought that the boy might come back after the man had turned his back. I don't believe a jury anywhere in the world could reasonably have sympathy for the idea that a person who believed themselves to be in mortal danger would turn their back on someone running away, and the idea that the man might have believed the boy was going to run away, then come back to get kill him after the man turned his back could justify the man running after the boy and killing him strikes me as impossible.

I haven't read very much about this story, but I don't think that the boy was an "assailant", and it seems to me that this man was exactly what he's being portrayed to be, which is a vigilante. I have not seen nor read anything that would lead me to believe that this boy was threatening anyone.

Again, sorry about my posts that seemed more like texts.

 

[UnluckyTwin]

Did you READ the transcript or listen to the tapes Danny? Really?

They went like this.
There is a suspicious character outside.
Is he black or Hispanic.

Who is the racist there?

Not: "Can you describe this person".

Nope. Just "Is he black or Hispanic"

The transcript says the dispatcher asked, "This guy, is he white, black, or Hispanic?" (http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html#document/p2/a49098) Careful there Gypsy. Maybe you should double-check all your "facts" and stop pretending you're the only one who knows anything.

Anyone who thinks this Zimmerman guy acted reasonably is a lunatic. Hope they can vet the jury for crazy.

 

[Imdanny]

I'm angry, I'm frustrated, I'm seething, I'm crying.........

I just read a bunch of news articles about the victim, the gunman (his sorry ass is in hiding), etc. The victim's friends' stories ring true. The gunman's story so called affirmed by the Sanford police does not. I'm crying too. Hugs.

 

[littlelysser]

Gypsy - Given what I've read of the 911 transcript, the media reports, and the fact that an unarmed boy was shot with skittles in his hand, I feel entirely confident that he was followed and killed for NO good reason. Of course, my feelings on the matter do not equate with legal culpability - but it certainly should have resulted in a thorough investigation. I certainly don't have all of the facts.

The author of the law has stated that the legislative intent behind the law was NOT to protect someone who was pursuing or confronting other people. Given the 911 transcript, it seems that is what Zimmerman was doing. Even so, I'm not ready to convict him, as there is a HUGE difference between a court of justice and a court of public opinion - just ask Casey Anthony.

As for whether or not I agree with the language you quoted in your post, yes and no.

I absolutely disagree with your statement that "race did not play a role in any of this." I think race absolutely played a role in what motivated Zimmerman (he had placed a over 40 nonemergency 911 calls in the year preceding the murder- the vast majority of them are to report a young, black male(s) in his neighborhood) to follow and ultimately murder Martin. And if I'm being totally honest, had Zimmerman shot an unarmed white teenager, carrying only candy, in a neighborhood he had every right to be in, I *personally* believe the resulting investigation would have been much different.

I don't know that people are saying the prosecutor is obviously racist and corrupt - I think that is a real oversimplification of what is going on. And I don't think you can say that the appointment of a special prosecutor is ONLY to appease the public - it may be your opinion that that was why, but you also have absolutely no facts to back up that sentiment. It may very well be that race played a role in the prosecutor's decision - you have no evidence that it did not just as I have no evidence that it did.

All that having been said, I do agree that public pressure to bring a person to trial before the prosecution is prepared is a bad thing.

But I don't feel that is what is happening in this case.

 

[packrat]

Didn't we just have a long discussion recently about the Anthony case and the legal system? It did not matter what *I* thought about it or how *I* interpreted the case, far as I'm concerned she was guilty, guilty, guilty-it was decided in the courtroom, and it was decided that there was enough doubt. A good defense lawyer can get anybody off, even people that are guilty. I would venture to say that a good defense lawyer could find loopholes and ways to twist out of the noose even if the defendant had pleaded guilty. Do I think the guy did it on purpose? Yes, I do. Do I have all the facts in the case? Heck no, all I know is what I've read on here and facebook. Did he say he was protecting his family? Kinda hard to protect your family if you're running blocks away from your house. Was it racially motivated? To my eyes it was. Far as I'm aware racism doesn't start/stop w/White V Black. Here, there's a lot of Brown V Black posturing. I think it's heartbreaking and disgusting..but let's just say that the public outcry is enough to drive them into court before the prosecution is ready, what good does that do? Or the defense finds one teeny tiny little thing that the prosecution failed to cover, or whatever other million things that could go wrong by going to trial too quickly..let them get their ducks in a row first so that doesn't happen.

Years ago there was a shaken baby case in this area. It was the most horrific thing, what came out about that child's injuries. And the guy who did it, was let go. All it took was something simple like "Is it possible that he stepped into the backyard to have a cigarette and someone else sneaked in the front door and did this". Something utterly and completely asinine as to ask "Is it possible that the great spaghetti monster floated high above the sky and millions of glitter sparkles fell to the earth and became unicorns" And it turned out that yes, there *could* be one miniscule particle of time where someone else could *possibly maybe in some way defied the laws of physics and materialized into that house and did this*. The whole area walked around in a daze, completely dumbstruck that that was all it took. But everyone was so sure he was guilty, they jumped the gun, and now he's free.

 

[Imdanny]

Never mind.

 

[Imdanny]

Did you READ the transcript or listen to the tapes Danny? Really?

They went like this.
There is a suspicious character outside.
Is he black or Hispanic.

Who is the racist there?

Not: "Can you describe this person".

Nope. Just "Is he black or Hispanic"

The transcript says the dispatcher asked, "This guy, is he white, black, or Hispanic?" (http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html#document/p2/a49098) Careful there Gypsy. Maybe you should double-check all your "facts" and stop pretending you're the only one who knows anything.

Anyone who thinks this Zimmerman guy acted reasonably is a lunatic. Hope they can vet the jury for crazy.

I did not see Gypsy"s post above excoriating me for getting my facts wrong before replying to her above.


Physician, heal thyself.

 

[Imdanny]

The author of the law has stated that the legislative intent behind the law was NOT to protect someone who was pursuing or confronting other people.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-_n_1371171.html


I think it's disingenuous to read the 911 transcript and conclude Zimmerman's concern was anything other than BREAK-IN'S and the reason he pursued Martin was because as he himself clearly says- 'these people always get away'. (That's a mark for paraphrase, not quote, in case anyone's confused).

He wasn't concerned his life was in danger. He was the "neighborhood watch" guy so he went off and pursed Martin like a wanna-be cop.

And good thing for him the cops in Sanford are idiots.

He claims self-defense. I'm shocked! And he has injuries! Like, OMG, it couldn't be that, oh, I don't know, Martin was trying to defend himself from someone he was trying to get away from.

BS.

 

[gammygam]

I think the real question is the "stand your ground" law. My old law professor was quoted in Huffington as saying that this law isn't applicable to Zimmerman even under the broad terms of the law. If Zimmerman gave chase to Martin, it seems that the stand your ground defense wouldn't apply.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/03/21/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-_n_1371171.html

 

[gammygam]

Sorry Danny, didnt see you had quoted the article. I, too, have the problems with posting on an iPhone.

 

[mary poppins]

I think the real question is the "stand your ground" law. My old law professor was quoted in Huffington as saying that this law isn't applicable to Zimmerman even under the broad terms of the law. If Zimmerman gave chase to Martin, it seems that the stand your ground defense wouldn't apply.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/03/21/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-_n_1371171.html

It seems so, but Florida precedent in Miami-Dade and Broward counties says otherwise. The Stand Your Ground law has turned Florida into the wild, wild (south) west (in the east). Check out these crazy cases that don't even get to the jury because the judges dismissed or acquitted:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/24/2710297/stand-your-ground-law-had-a-sad.html

 

[perry]

First: I agree very much with Gypsy; with the following exception.

I do think there needs to be a public outcry to drive refinement of the law - and also to better educate the public.

However, I see an awful lot of speculation and convicting a person based on speculation. Prejudice is the act of prejudging. I see a lot of that in the public outcry and discussion.

Personally, I agree that something does not smell right here. However, that is a long way from saying that someone should be have been arrested so far.

The public outcry will drive a better investigation of the entier event (from the role of neighborhood watches, the 911 dispatcher, etc).


Another thing to consider - just because someone makes a mistake does not make it a criminal case. Every one of us have made mistakes - every one of us have unitentionally broken laws. This does not (nor should it) lead to criminal charges. Civil charges are a different matter.


Have a great day,

Perry

 

[littlelysser]

Agreed Gammy! Oh, and I don't post much here anymore, but I still come around and see what's going on - and I peaked into this thread before going to bed last night and I couldn't not respond!

 

[MissStepcut]

I'll just say that I wholeheartedly agree with Gypsy. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a high bar, and based just on what I've heard, I see lots of room for doubt. I am sure the prosecutor sees even more than I do.

 

[Imdanny]

Perry, for all I know I break laws everyday but I've never mistakenly killed someone.

And this is NOT a thread about prosecutors being "rushed". It is the Sanford who have DECIDED not to arrest Zimmerman.

Oh, you did it in self-defense and there is no witness to say you didn't? Well, then. You just take your gun and go home!

Anyone can read the 911 transcript. The man was not in mortal danger. Period.

 

[Imdanny]

I'll just say that I wholeheartedly agree with Gypsy. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a high bar, and based just on what I've heard, I see lots of room for doubt. I am sure the prosecutor sees even more than I do.

Well, then. We'll just have vigilantes pursuing children in the streets with guns for "looking suspicious". Great. And again, the people who wrote the law and the governor who signed it have said it does not apply to Zimmerman.

The Sanford police should have arrested him and then he should have the burden of proving self-defense.

Nice world when we can go around murdering each other and say, "Oh, well, it was self-defense."

Show me some evidence about these poor beleaguered prosecutors who don't think they have enough evidence. You can't. Because the Sanford police simply let the man go.