Justice and Security: Neighborhood Watch Captain Attacks, Kills Unarmed Teenager

See above. That description of events is not consistent with what Zimmerman claims happened. Since there isn't really any evidence one way or the other, how do you prove anything?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Couple of points.

I don't agree that there is any racist comment on the 911 tape (nor have I seen any evidence that the police tried to hide it).

It sounds to me like he says "Fucking CONES" as in highway marking cones.

The vowel sound in the second word is a long "O" sound, not a long "U" sound.

But then others claim they hear "Punks".

http://www.wftv.com/videos/news/original-zimmerman-controversial-comment-explicit/vGbyc/

Listen yourself, but it's not as clear an issue as you make it.

The police didn't issue him any orders, a dispatcher saying we don't need you to do that is not the same as a policeman saying don't do that. (I think the dispatcher should have been more assertive)

Then people related to Martin claim they hear him on the tape, but another impartial witness says that Martin was beating the crap out of Zimmerman and it was Zimmerman calling for help.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com..._1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager

As far as other info being hidden, I think you are jumping to conclusions.
Some info has dribbled out and some initial info turns out to not be complete, but that's just the nature of this kind of story, and not necessarily an indication of any cover-up.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, not just the early news repots, it's been repeated over and over in the local Florida news, so my guess is they have looked into it and there is a Neighborhood Watch program and apparently they do have "Captains", and I presume since they keep reporting it, that he was one.

http://www.usaonwatch.org/search/default.aspx?F_Keywords=captain

Still, it's not like you take a test or get promoted to that "rank" based on experience.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It sounds more like "punks" to me, although it's certainly not clear.

 

Bells this case makes me wonder about private criminal procutions. I know it's possible here but the AG can stop it if they wish to peruse the case but sounds like the family would do a better job than the state in this case

 

That assumption is the reason I marked the issue as worth noticing: as far as I can discover there was and is no registered Neighborhood Watch program in that community, and Zimmerman was not part of any such group (notice that no one from Zimmerman's "Neighborhood Watch" group has been interviewed about any of this, about the training, the policies, etc - that's because there are no such people, locally, to interview).

So where did the language come from?

 

If by "private criminal prosecution" (if that's what you meant assume) you mean a civil action for wrongful death, Florida law bars that too, just as it does with criminal action.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html

They can file it and see how things go, but it does not say that "it is a defense" to liability, it says the perpetrator is immune from the legal action itself, meaning a court should dismiss it without a trial. The courts might allow them to try the notion that the protection does not apply (likely in separate hearings from the wrongful death action itself), but the parents would be better off getting a conviction first, or at least letting federal and state investigators gather more information. Plus, it kinda looks like the crazy law does apply.

 

No that's not what I meant. It's possible in Australia for someone to privately bring CRIMINAL procidings but the state attorney generals have the right to block it if the crown intends to procide with there own prosecution. I don't know of any cases where it's happened but it's still possible, it's just the crown has more resources do its better to leave it to the crown.

 

I did not know that. There is nothing like that in the U.S., and if their were the prohibition on criminal proceedings in the same statute would almost certainly apply to those as well.

 

Yes actually there is

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution

 

Interesting, but apparently only in one state (Virginia). But in any case, I don't see how you could possibly hope to convict him. There simply isn't any proof that it wasn't self-defense. The only actual witness says that he saw Martin pin Zimmerman to the ground and punch him, so...

 

Because of state law, the only justice available to the family may be Federal civil rights laws - the same laws used to bust the KKK in the South.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_civil_rights_workers_murders#Trial

 

Q-tips might be in order.
What ever is being said on that tape, it's clearly not COON.
There is no long O sound.

As far as being "cleared up", there appears to be nothing to clear up, as only the blogosphere seems to be repeating that version of what's on the tape.

Don't know that they did.
There are likely procedures to go through to get it released.
What evidence do you have that it was withheld from the lawyers longer than normal? Why do you think elapsed time for release was important anyway?

Again you change the words used to suit your slanted narrative.

The dispatcher said "we don't NEED you to do that", which is not the same as "Don't do that".

Quite possibly.
So?
Does that change what happened during the fight between the two men?

Again that's not exactly true either. A number of people have also identified it as Zimmerman's voice, and the police are saying it is Zimmerman, and a witness to the scene, who saw and heard who was crying out, said it was Zimmerman. Indeed, it's much more logical that the guy with the broken nose, fat lip and gash in the back of the head would be doing so vs the person giving him that beating.

No, that is not true either Bells.

As to the other witness you just quoted, the salient point is that "Mary Cutcher ... neither saw the shooting nor the preceding altercation", what she saw was after the shooting and is consistent with Zimmerman checking on Martin's condition:

“I thought he’s holding the wound, helping the guy taking a pulse, making sure he’s okay. When she called to him three times, everything okay, what’s going on? Each time he looked back, didn’t say anything and then the third time he finally said, ‘just call the police.’”

So again, the one eyewitness we have to the fight said it was Martin on top and giving Zimmerman a beating, not at all like your rendition of events.

From what I understand that's sort of standard practice to find out how sure they are of what they saw. I mean I see that all the time on what appear to be realistic police shows, the typical: "are your sure it wasn't xxxxx, and not yyyyy that you saw?", but that's TV and I'm not a policeman, still it seems like a reasonable course of action for finding out what actually happened when dealing with eye witnesses. Challenge them and see how certain they are.

Actually I haven't seen any actual weights for either, but what we do know is that Zimmerman is 5'9" and Martin was 6'3", I'm not sure that matters, weight can be muscle or fat, and from what's been related by the one eye-witness to the actual fight, and backed up by the injuries Zimmerman sustained, it does appear that it was Martin who was doing the beating.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com..._1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager

But you use witnesses, like the Dog Walker above to corroborate your story, and they didn't see it like you claim they did.

Don't know.
How does this have any bearing on what happened?
This isn't a case where the police are gathering forensic evidence so later they can use fiber evidence to prove that X was at the scene and did the shooting. They already know who was there and they already know who did the shooting.

Don't know, it's a small town though, so maybe that's what they had available. I would still presume any Detective is smart enough about crime scenes to know how to handle a case like this however.

Don't know. My guess is yes but I haven't seen anything specifically about that.
Again, there was no question about who shot who and with what weapon.

Don't know that he was, and as far as I can tell, nothing has "come out" that doen't seem to support his story of what happened, so until he is actually charged with a crime I'm not sure why he would lose his permit.

Well I think ALL those questions are being asked.
But I disagree that much, if any, evidence has been lost.
He did have a gash on the back of his head.
He did get a broken nose.
He was treated by paramedics at the scene, so there are going to be medical reports.
A witness did put him with his back on the ground and Martin on top laying a beating on him.
His t-shirt was reported in the police report as having grass on the back, so even if they didn't keep his shirt, there is on-site testimony about it's condition.

Did they test him for Alcohol or drugs? Apparently not, but then police are pretty good at telling if someone is acting like they are on either, so I'm not overly concerned that they didn't.

Absolutely, and you then justify jumping to conclusions based on simple one-sided infotainment masquerading as journalism.

So? What do Zimmerman's clothes have to do with this?

We KNOW there was contact between the two men, how else does one get a gash on the back of one's head and his nose broken? Eye-witnesses put Martin on top before the shooting, and Zimmerman on top, holding the wound, after the shooting. So both would have been lying on the ground at one time with the other on top, so the clothes can't be used to deny the fact that there was a struggle or prove who was on top of who, when.

I'm not saying that Zimmerman didn't precipitate this event by his overzealous prosecution of his self elected position as "watch captain".

He did.

But so far we've seen no evidence to justify Martin laying a beating on him either.

And, under Fl law, once someone started beating on him to the extent that his injuries suggest that Martin did, then the law protects Zimmerman for using his weapon to defend himself.

As I've pointed out already.

I think the law needs rework.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but to start with I think that anyone with a CC permit that is carrying a gun and is engaged in any quasi law enforcement type activities, including what Zimmerman was doing, has to have some training to do so before they can carry a gun on one of these patrols and I think they have to also have other options for defense besides just a gun.

 

Sure. It's entirely plausible that a fit highschool athlete (which Martin was) could get the upper hand in a fight against a fat, out-of-shape guy (which Zimmerman appears to be). Extra fat doesn't help much if you're trying to get someone off of you in a fight. Zimmerman reportedly had a broken nose and cuts on the back of his head, which is consistent with his claim that Martin punched him and then straddled him and slammed the back of Zimmerman's head into the ground.

 

The same Florida law also permits Trayvon Martin to use deadly force against Zimmerman for stalking and attacking him - with a deadly weapon, no less!

Or rather, it would, if Martin had survived instead of Zimmerman. This law basically legalizes gunfights - and is already being systematically abused by criminal gangs to wage large gun battles without fear of legal prosecution. It's completely inane.

Did you read the part where he calls Trayvon Martin a "fucking coon" - to a 911 dispatcher, no less - minutes before accosting and murdering him?

Carrying a gun and ignoring warnings from a 911 dispatcher not to engage are not "appropriate" actions for a neighboorhood watch participant. They are explicit violations of the standard neighborhood watch guidelines. They are, moverover, exactly the sorts of things that dangerous wanna-be vigilantes tend to do, and which the rest of us do not tolerate exactly because they lead to outcomes like this one.

When has that ever been exclusive of somebody being racist? Especially considering the circumstances and the consequent incentives for said friends and family to exculpate him.

But, to be clear: nobody is saying the guy is a card-carrying Klan member. Just your usual oblivious racist who treats black, male youths with a level of unjustified suspicion and double-standards that result in drastically different treatment and assumptions.

Although, the real offense here is the Florida institutions themselves are similarly racist and so back him up instead of arresting and charging him.

Possible, but bear in mind that Zimmerman outweighed Martin by over 100 pounds. I have roughly zero sympathy for an armed dude who stalks and accosts a kid half his size at night. The rational presumption on Martin's part would have to have been that Zimmerman was a dangerous criminal intending to do great bodily harm - or worse - to Martin. Which also happens to be exactly the truth.

And that we have no actual evidence of this besides Zimmerman's own word, after the fact, when the cops have showed up in response to him killing an unarmed black kid half his size.

Or so he says - yet he didn't bother seeking medical attention for this supposed broken bone.

This term "quasi law enforcement role" means "vigilante," yes?

By the way, have you looked up how many of those calls were to report black youths doing nothing in particular? This wasn't the first time he targetted black kids for no defensible reason. It's just the first time he killed one.

 

Nah, this part of the story has no legs.
Impartial people don't agree with you.

To me he clearly doesn't say COONS, but CONES, (and I know you don't live here, but that racial slur is really archaic), but with that long O sound clearly audible, I don't believe your version will last.

Yeah, a lawyer for the Martins is not an unbiased source.

As I said, he's over-zealous.

No, you can't assert that he called him a "fucking coon" Bells.

Breaking a guys nose, fattening his lip and putting a gash in the back of the head is not defending himself though.

Not when the only eye-witness to the actual fight has Zimmerman on the ground and Martin bashing his head against the pavement.

No they don't.
They have him there AFTER the shot was fired.

I thought he’s holding the wound, helping the guy taking a pulse, making sure he’s okay

Prior to the shot, Martin is on top of Zimmerman.

One witness, who has since talked to local television news reporters, told police he saw Zimmerman on the ground with Trayvon on top, pounding him — and was unequivocal that it was Zimmerman who was crying for help.

Yeah, the one eye-witness above who actually saw the fight and heard it LIVE who said it was UNEQUIVOCAL that it was Zimmerman crying for help.

Yeah, a poor recording like they have can make it much harder to identify, but luckily we have an Eye Witness who was there and can tell us who it was.

Ah, you are going to have to quote that again Bells, can't fine ANY testimony like that in any articles.

As far as I know only ONE person saw it, is quoted above and that's not in their version.

And yet earlier Cutcher said: “I thought he’s holding the wound, helping the guy taking a pulse, making sure he’s okay. "

So not turning him over doesn't mean he wasn't trying to help by putting pressure on the wound.

Yeah, if that's where the blood is coming from (exit wounds tend to be much worse than entry wounds)

Just because he doesn't do CPR doesn't mean he wasn't trying to stop the bleeding.

No it's not Bells. Questioning witnesses can be done by challenging their statements.

So you've seen the autopsy report Bells?
You've weighed Zimmerman?

So? Unless Zimmerman pulled his gun prior to the beating, Martin had no right to beat him like he did. No witness has said that was the case.

Nope, that was the SAME witness.

I'm sure it is standard practice during an autopsy.
So?
As to clothing, you still haven't made a single argument as to the value of his clothes to this case.

No, they did collect evidence and testimony and so far, all I've seen seems to corroborate his story. I've yet to hear a single piece of evidence that clearly disputes anything Zimmerman has said (and considering the heat the police are getting on this, I do believe if they catch him in even one lie I think he is toast)

BS, this isn't TV. You can't find out who someone is based on their phone without a Warrant. If it's my phone you found you couldn't even unlock it to find it's number or recent numbers dialed etc, besides, I'm not sure why you think identifing him as fast as possible was such a critical issue. I'm guessing the police would expect to be called by someone looking for him.

Not particularly comforted or worried about it Bells, but then the New Black Panthers did put out a $10,000 bounty on him, so yeah, since he hasn't been charged with a crime I see no legal reason they can take away his permit.

Again, based on what?
No one has said he was acting like he had been drinking or on drugs.

No Bells, he didn't just stand his ground. In Zimmerman's account, he was walking back to his car when Martin hit him. No one has come forward and said that's not what happend, but what we do have an eyewitness to is that a 6'3" MAN was beating the crap out of someone by pounding their head into the pavement.

Sure, stand your ground, that doesn't give you the right to lay a beating on him.

But the law does NOT require you to wait UNTIL the person beating you does serious personal injury Bells. The fat lip, the broken nose and the gash on the back of the head is probably sufficient to justify the legal basis for acting based on the fear of serious personal injury.

Not my line Bells, but then I don't think a prosecuter can use any of those to negate the legal basis for Zimmerman's fear of serious personal injury.