Trayvon

[GH2001]

I think we can discuss this like adults again.

What I hear from those tapes only strengthens my position on who was looking for trouble, and whether or not Trayvon acted appropriately.

He did exactly what I would hope my kid would do if some guy is following him around a neighborhood driving slowly behind him in a car. Fucking run. Get out of there. That's what he tried to do, but Zimmerman kept up the chase. Ran after him on foot.

Him saying he's "coming towards him with something in his hand" and then a few seconds later complaining that "these assholes always get away" contradict each other. Seems like at the "He's coming toward me" portion of the call was when Trayvon became alerted that he had been following him and was surveilling him. So what did he do? He ran away. Tried to escape from the guy who had been following him for apparently no reason.

What happened when running didn't work? When the guy got out of his car and started chasing him on foot? He asked him what the fuck his problem was and attacked him (allegedly).

Given what we know transpired for a fact, and what can be gathered from the 911 call, in my opinion, Travon Martin did everything exactly as you would expect anyone to under the same situation to do. He did what I would hope my kid would do. He did what I certainly would have done. But Zimmerman, because he was so paranoid about this kid walking through his neighborhood wouldn't give it up and ended up shooting the kid.

All I'm saying.

The main thing Ive tried to convey in this thread, like Token, is to let all of these facts play out. Too many people are jumping to too many conclusions too early. With a lot of it being done on purpose for poltical purposes (Sharpton and Black Panthers). People need not take that bait with out of context hearsay. We don't know a lot of the How and Why in this case. Let the dust settle and don't get too wound up about it unless there is a need to at the conclusion of all the facts coming out.

Go get you a beer Chad. I'll buy it for you via paypal.

[JR4AU]

If you take the above, and piece it together with Trayvon's girlfriends account (assuming you believe her, and other than bias, there's no reason not to) then it's clear someone re-engaged. 

Girlfriend:

Martin's girlfriend had said in a recording obtained exclusively by ABC News that she heard Martin ask Zimmerman "why are your following me, and then the man asked, what are you doing around here." She then heard a scuffle break out and the line went dead.

http://gma.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-shooter-told-cops-teenager-went-gun-030349812--abc-news.html

It's clear from the 911 call that up and during that time, neither had been in close enough proximity to constitute an imminent threat, at least in Zimmerman's eyes, and it's further clear that Trayvon put some distance between he and Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman at least initially didn't give chase after he ran.  (Whether he did or didn't after he hung up, would be proved or disproved by the proximity to where the shooting took place relative to Zimmerman's vehicle, which he claimed he was going to wait by or in.)  At least in the 911 call, there was a lot of time for a 17 year old football player to put a lot of distance between himself and 39 year old man that doesn't appear to be built to be "fleet a foot". 

My best legal opinion, which is all I've offered here, is that, so far, the evidence tends to be in favor of Zimmerman doing what dispatch told him to, and Trayvon coming back and attacking him.  There's still forensics left out there to look at.   

[AUChizad]

Chad, I know you poked fun at JR with the leather bound books comment, but he IS a Prosecutor in an Alabama County. I know of some of the cases he has dealt with in the news. He has dealt with several similar cases and knows his shit accordingly. It doesn't mean he is the be all of everything but it does mean this is his area and he does it everyday. Is anyone else in this thread a Prosecutor of this types of cases? I think you just don't like his contribution to this because it conflicts with your opinion.

Couldn't be further from the truth.

I 100% defer to him as to how this will be interpreted by the law. At no point did I claim expertise in that area of it. I said multiple times, that if that's the way the law is written and should legally be interpreted, then I'm cool with that. GarMan scoffed at the notion, that I still think, from what I have gathered, that I don't think Zimmerman was justified in killing this kid, no matter what. He brought him on himself. Legally? That's still yet to be seen. Practically? Exactly what was previously stated about Trayvon, instead applies to Zimmerman. He was looking for trouble, and he found it.

What I "don't like" is when he barks about intelligence and dismisses a string of facts with "You are dumb."

[Token]

Zimmerman has a high voice on that 911 call.  I bet he sounds like a child when he cries.

[GH2001]

Couldn't be further from the truth.

I 100% defer to him as to how this will be interpreted by the law. At no point did I claim expertise in that area of it. I said multiple times, that if that's the way the law is written and should legally be interpreted, then I'm cool with that. GarMan scoffed at the notion, that I still think, from what I have gathered, that I don't think Zimmerman was justified in killing this kid, no matter what. He brought him on himself. Legally? That's still yet to be seen. Practically? Exactly what was previously stated about Trayvon, instead applies to Zimmerman. He was looking for trouble, and he found it.

What I "don't like" is when he barks about intelligence and dismisses a string of facts with "You are dumb."

The personal bickering between you and him/GarMan aside, I still think there is a gap in the logic youre using because I really don't think we know even half the facts yet. Look at how much we know now versus 1 week ago. Imagine what we will know in another week or a month. Let's see this thing start to finish after an investigation and form a firm opinion at that point. Thats all I am saying.

[JR4AU]

I think we can discuss this like adults again.

What I hear from those tapes only strengthens my position on who was looking for trouble, and whether or not Trayvon acted appropriately.


All I'm saying.

If you think "neighborhood watch" is "looking for trouble" and that people who are being watched carefully by neighborhood watch are justified in going on the attack, then there's very little, no, there's no common ground for you and reasonable people to find.

If you're in a neighborhood where you don't live, at night, on foot, and you find yourself being followed, you best assess the threat, and make the right decision.  My best legal advice is: put some distance between you and the one following you, and if they pick up the pace to stay up with you, then you can choose to continue to retreat or stand your ground.  In no event are you justified in going on the offensive for simply being followed.  If they attack, you have the right to defend yourself with the force necessary to stop the attack, and you do not have to wait until they actually do you any injury or harm.  You must only have a reasonable fear of it.     

[JR4AU]

Zimmerman has a high voice on that 911 call.  I bet he sounds like a child when he cries.

That's what Sandusky said.

[GH2001]

That's what Sandusky said.

Too soon?

[JR4AU]

I think we can discuss this like adults again.

What I hear from those tapes only strengthens my position on who was looking for trouble, and whether or not Trayvon acted appropriately.

He did exactly what I would hope my kid would do if some guy is following him around a neighborhood driving slowly behind him in a car. Fucking run. Get out of there. That's what he tried to do, but Zimmerman kept up the chase. Ran after him on foot.

Him saying he's "coming towards him with something in his hand" and then a few seconds later complaining that "these assholes always get away" contradict each other. Seems like at the "He's coming toward me" portion of the call was when Trayvon became alerted that he had been following him and was surveilling him. So what did he do? He ran away. Tried to escape from the guy who had been following him for apparently no reason.

What happened when running didn't work? When the guy got out of his car and started chasing him on foot? He asked him what the fuck his problem was and attacked him (allegedly).

Given what we know transpired for a fact, and what can be gathered from the 911 call, in my opinion, Travon Martin did everything exactly as you would expect anyone to under the same situation to do. He did what I would hope my kid would do. He did what I certainly would have done. But Zimmerman, because he was so paranoid about this kid walking through his neighborhood wouldn't give it up and ended up shooting the kid.

All I'm saying.

If you heard Zimmerman continuing to give chase after Trayvon ran, then you listened to a different 911 call than I posted.

[JR4AU]

Too soon?

Sorry, slipped out.  Back on track.

[Vandy Vol]

Further, police reports cite that Zimmerman's back was wet and had grass on it . . .

Are you calling Mr. Zimmerman a wetback and suggesting that he was transporting marijuana into our wonderful country?

Racist.

[AUJarhead]

Did you guys also realize that this was a gated community?  I'm sorry...  I just heard that and confirmed it online.  Trayvon had absolutely no motherfucking business being there.  END OF STORY!

I thought he was in the community visiting is father's fiancee.  I assumed that she lived in that community.  Does she not?

[JR4AU]

Couldn't be further from the truth.

I 100% defer to him as to how this will be interpreted by the law. At no point did I claim expertise in that area of it. I said multiple times, that if that's the way the law is written and should legally be interpreted, then I'm cool with that. GarMan scoffed at the notion, that I still think, from what I have gathered, that I don't think Zimmerman was justified in killing this kid, no matter what. He brought him on himself. Legally? That's still yet to be seen. Practically? Exactly what was previously stated about Trayvon, instead applies to Zimmerman. He was looking for trouble, and he found it.

What I "don't like" is when he barks about intelligence and dismisses a string of facts with "You are dumb."

Fair enough. 

I haven't dismissed any facts.  The facts you cite, or cite in answer to certain questions, are largely irrelevant.  I've not read every article about this, but what I know that is being reported, and what I hear on the 911 call, leads me to believe that what you've hypothesized is true.  How we each characterize it is diametrically opposed.  Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain, saw a young man in a hoodie that, for whatever reason, raised suspicion in his mind.  Was there a racial element?  Probably, but maybe not.  I have no idea. 

Zimmerman was completely within his rights to follow the kid.  He backed it up with a 911 call.  Not a sign of someone "looking for trouble", but hey, the guy in Tx did too.

I believe exactly what you say Chad.  Trayvon ran, then his "primal instincts" made him go back and confront Zimmerman.  If you take the girlfriend at her word, he said "why are you following me?"...he was the first to re-engage, (at no time on the 911 call can you hear Trayvon, and it's clear to me, that Zimmerman lost sight of him for some time) and Zimmerman's initial response was words.  It makes no sense to me that he's say "what are you doing around here while simultaneously launching a physical attack.   That doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that it's not likely in my mind.  You're "primal instincts" argument is also probably spot on, and in my experience would lead a young man to behave more animal like and go on the offensive first.   Trayvon may have felt like he had the right based on street code, or maybe he had a lack of impulse control, but he had no legal right to launch a physical attack, when one had not been launched on him.

My best guess is, Zimmerman gave up, was walking back to his car, and Trayvon decided to come back and confront him.  If that is the case, he made the wrong decision to initiate a physical confrontation. 

[Vandy Vol]

I thought he was in the community visiting is father's fiancee.  I assumed that she lived in that community.  Does she not?

I read the same thing.

But, of course, the media posts a different "fact" each day.  The picture of the kid with gold teeth (as well as other pictures used in the media) aren't even pictures of Trayvon Martin.

Yet everyone knows exactly what happened and who this kid is based upon media reports alone.

[AWK]

This is pointless...  Even though the evidence overwhelmingly supports what most of us have been saying, AUJizzad will never accept that he is wrong.  Just look at his response...

The relevant facts don't matter a whole lot to him.  It's his emotional based opinion of the situation that trumps all legal relevance. 

You just can't counter that sort of infantile reasoning.

I love how you say all evidence and facts point one way, towards your view,  yet JR and others argue that we don't know all the facts yet and should wait for their release.  Which is it?  Are all of the facts released?  Or do you just rabble rabble rabble along and don't even realize what has been said?

I really don't understand your incapability of seeing another persons point.  Everything isn't always black or white, and I hate to break it to you buddy, but you aren't always right.   

His argument is emotional, and based around base facts, from which he's extrapolates to his own "facts" to support such things as characterizing Zimmerman as "stalking him with a gun".  It's why when you question him about "facts" he defaults to "Zimmerman shot an unarmed 17 year old, is that disputed?"  No, it's not, and it's not near enough facts for intelligent people to make a decision one way or the other. We don't know if Zimmerman did anything other than follow him at a distance.  We don't know when he drew his gun.  Rational people who wait on facts don't know much of what would be needed to make a decision, but chizads dumb fuck ass made a decision long ago, and nothing will dissuade him and he'll frame his arguments around his "facts" to persuade anybody that will listen.   Please tell me what relevance there is to Trayvon's purpose in going to the store, or in what he purchased as to whether or not he may or may not have attacked Zimmerman?

This whole paragraph is moot.  Every argument, regardless of its creation, has some sort of emotional or other interest tied into it.  If it didn't, it wouldn't be called an argument.

[Kaos]

Putting your underhanded racism aside, none of that above matters to the case at hand at all.  And actually, In court, none of that would be admissible.  So, I guess, the entire legal system in the United States, Great Britain, and Common law disagree with you.  They are probably wrong too though, and dumb.

This is where I lose it with our judicial system.  This concept of "admissible" is asinine.  Prior bad acts DO relate to how people behave.  In every world other than the legal system people study trends and patterns to predict future behaviors. 

The technicalities for excluding evidence are ridiculous. 

Fuck court.  It's a messed up system.

[CCTAU]

What I hear from those tapes only strengthens my position on who was looking for trouble,

No shit Sherlock. That is what neighborhood watches do. THEY LOOK FOR TROUBLE.

[JR4AU]

This is where I lose it with our judicial system.  This concept of "admissible" is asinine.  Prior bad acts DO relate to how people behave.  In every world other than the legal system people study trends and patterns to predict future behaviors. 

The technicalities for excluding evidence are ridiculous. 

Fuck court.  It's a messed up system.

Man, if only I could just put the person and all their past bad acts on trial, rather than the evidence itself, then I could convict almost anybody of anything. 


The purpose of a trial is to put forth evidence of the criminal act that is the subject matter at hand, not try to make the defendant look like a bad person in order to sustain a conviction based on that. 

How would a 10 year old conviction for possession of marijuana for persona use, be relevant to a current charge of assault?  The answer is, in the mind of a juror, they'd tune out the evidence once they decided the defendant was "a criminal that must have done it this time too" based on something completely unrelated from his past. 

There is a way to get certain past bad act in though, they just have to be relevant.  Like, if you're charge with assault, and have a previous assault conviction. That could come in.

[JR4AU]

No shit Sherlock. That is what neighborhood watches do. THEY LOOK FOR TROUBLE MAKERS.

fixt

Work with me here!

[Kaos]

Man, if only I could just put the person and all their past bad acts on trial, rather than the evidence itself, then I could convict almost anybody of anything. 


The purpose of a trial is to put forth evidence of the criminal act that is the subject matter at hand, not try to make the defendant look like a bad person in order to sustain a conviction based on that. 

How would a 10 year old conviction for possession of marijuana for persona use, be relevant to a current charge of assault?  The answer is, in the mind of a juror, they'd tune out the evidence once they decided the defendant was "a criminal that must have done it this time too" based on something completely unrelated from his past. 

There is a way to get certain past bad act in though, they just have to be relevant.  Like, if you're charge with assault, and have a previous assault conviction. That could come in.

Leopards are leopards.