Racial Profiling and A Heartbreaking Tragedy.

don't know if anyone posted this yet, sorry if it was, but I heard a recording of the 911 call on the radio. Might be nice for someone to find and post it.

reply to post by femalepharoe


For starters - Feel free to tell me our background if you have such an issue with my response.


Secondly - I dont agree at all with the stand your ground law being a question for a jury to decide. In this case the law is clear and because of that Mr. Zimmerman broke no laws in the State of Florida, which is supported by the fact that no charges have been filed against him by the county PA.

The only time its up to a jury / judge is when the PA goes forward with the charges. At that point the PA is stating in their professional opinion based on all of the evidence available, there is probable cause to believe Mr. John Doe did in fact commit the crime of X Y and Z.

Its then up to the PA to make their case and convince the jury / judge Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

Based on your posts I am getting the distinct impression that you disagree with the law and want to see Mr. Zimmerman charged and punished for his actions - Actions you perceive as wrong and illegal.

The problem with that view in this case is you cannot throw the baby out with the bath water.

All the evidence available comes from the watch captains call to 911 and the victims call to his girlfriend. Outside of that, it does not matter what we think, it only matters what can be proven.

Is the watch Captain racist? - He is the only person who can answer that question. If anyone else states he is its incumbent upon them to back the claim with actual directly witnessed examples.

Polygraphs are not reliable and therefore are not admissible in court.
Voice stress analysis is not reliable and therefore not admissible in court.

That leaves us with witnesses or security camera footage, and to my knowledge no one directly witnessed the incident. That leaves us with Mr. Zimmerman's version of events. That version of events is then compared to the forensic evidence collected by law enforcement. In this case the forensic evidence does not contradict Mr. Zimmerman's version of events, hence no charges.

Statute of limitations for murder is a long long time so on the off chance a witness comes forward down the road the incident can be revisited and charges will still be possible.

Absent that, Mr. Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty in court, regardless of your or my personal feelings are on the matter.

reply to post by andersensrm



Mr. Zimmerman's 911 call


The link below goes to a webpage that covers this topic. I have no idea about how reliable the information is on that site so browse at your own risk.
Trayvon Shooting


911 Call reporting screaming and shooting - disturbing for some listeners.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Absent that, Mr. Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty in court,

And there is the core issue as the family and most of the rest of America sees it.

Even if you put aside the clear fact that Zimmerman was pursuing Tayvon Martin and thus is the first aggressor, the Sanford Police department's failure to charge him has circumvented any hope of justice.

Okay, so people keep droning on about the "Stand your ground law"...the law should not and does not - as far as I know - prevent you from going to TRIAL to prove you were acting in self-defense.

CNN just highlighted a case where a BLACK man shot a white guy and guess what!? He had to stand trial and substantiate his defense.

Why is George Zimmerman an exception?

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by rebellender

 

Nope, not everyone's racist and segregation tends to fall along economic lines not color ones.

You're correct to a degree, everyone is not a racist, but every race has its racists. Segregation by means of an economic deficiency is by choice in most cases...not dollars/economy, UNLESS, maybe you live in the south.

However, If I were economically deprived (and I have been) I could "CHOOSE" to move into an economically disadvantaged white, mexican or asian neighborhood. That would be by choice, not by economic color lines. I've been there done that...lived that. At one time not because of choice, because of age and family. So, that's a choice...anyone can be broke/economically disadvantaged and move into a broke/economically disadvantaged community which may be comprised of other various races of economically disadvantaged people, divided only by race...not by segregation because they all choose to live side by side.

This is the case in Los Angeles County. Areas where all walks of life live side by side...could careless about your race...just ask that you respect their property and right to privacy...very simple eh. Many areas out here are only divided economically. You may live in a 2 square mile area where homes are valued at $1.5 million plus then cross the street and the home values drop by $650,000.00 as is the case in Hollywood which borders by one street Beverly Hills and Hollywood Hills and Los Angeles City, just by a few streets. That's a choice...that's not economic racial segregation.

I'm thankful that we chose by our (families) work and morals not to live in any one "Economically Racially Advantaged" areas. We live in a mixed "Racially Economically Advantaged" area. If I wanted what you presented, I would move to Sanford, Florida or back to Indianapolis, Indiana (sarcasm intended).

To sum it up it's a voluntary act.

Racial Segregation

ETA
At one time Watts & South Central Los Angeles was economically comprised of mainly economically disadvantaged Blacks...now it's a number of economically disadvantaged races, mostly Mexican. That's by choice and a huge growth of immigrants in Los Angeles...not by economics....unless you're a South Los Angeles Korean Capitalist doing business in a economically disadvantaged area

Originally posted by KillerQueen
And there is the core issue as the family and most of the rest of America sees it.

Again its based on what can be proven and not based on what people think / perceive based on personal opinions and morals..

Originally posted by KillerQueen
Even if you put aside the clear fact that Zimmerman was pursuing Tayvon Martin and thus is the first aggressor, the Sanford Police department's failure to charge him has circumvented any hope of justice.

Again Law Enforcement in the United States does not and cannot file charges against people. That responsibility is the sole authority of the Prosecuting Attorney. Take your issue up with the county PA, not the police.

Originally posted by KillerQueen
Okay, so people keep droning on about the "Stand your ground law"...the law should not and does not - as far as I know - prevent you from going to TRIAL to prove you were acting in self-defense.

Actually it does. The law provides the guidelines for how an individual can act in a certain situation. In this instance, the actions of Mr. Zimmerman are within that legal framework. A person can only be charged with a crime if there is probable cause to believe the person broke the law. That action is predicated on the evidence collected. To date there is no evidence to suggest Mr. Zimmerman violated any aspect of the Florida law.

If a persons actions are within the law, then there is no grounds to bring charges, simply put because there was no violation of the law. You cannot view this topic using personal moral standards. You can only view this situation in terms of what occurred and did that occurrence violate a law. It does not matter if you hate the person, or your moral view is in a completely different plane of existence than Mr. Zimmerman's, its reviewed in terms of totality of circumstances and did any of those circumstances fall outside the box.

in this case, so far, the answer is no.

Originally posted by KillerQueen
CNN just highlighted a case where a BLACK man shot a white guy and guess what!? He had to stand trial and substantiate his defense.

Respectfully that is irrelevant to this case. It has absolutely no bearing on what occurred, has absolutely no bearing on the investigation, absolutely no effect on the laws of the state of Florida.

Originally posted by KillerQueen
Why is George Zimmerman an exception?

He is not.. Mr. Zimmerman, as well as the individual CNN is dragging into the argument for ratings, are both innocent until proven guilty.

Our legal system is purposely designed to require the State to prove their case without forcing the defendant to provide evidence against himself. Its is purposely designed to acknowledge that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Our legal system is intentionally designed to allow the possibility of a criminal going free as opposed to locking up a person who is in fact innocent.

Its not a perfect system in the least. Its adversarial for a reason - it forces the best possible outcome and stacks the deck in the favor of the defense, as it should.

If people have an issue with Mr. Zimmerman's actions, you are focusing on the wrong issue. Where you should have an issue is with the law itself, the legislators who put it together and voted for it and for the governor who signed it into law.

I dont agree with Mr. Zimmerman's actions - at all. I think his actions intentionally escalated the situation and I dont believe Mr. Zimmerman exercised good judgment when he opted to ignore the advice the 91 dispatcher gave.

Since we cannot go down the road of ex post facto laws, fixating on an issue that is most likely going to go down as a wtf moment solves nothing. People should focus their anger on the law itself, pinpoint the areas of the law that failed in this case, and work to get it corrected so it does not happen again.

Now, with that being said, just because criminal charges can't be filed doesn't mean its over with. I would say the family has an excellent civil lawsuit. Because Mr. Zimmerman is part of a neighborhood watch, the training and methods chosen by that group can be examined and called into question. If Law Enforcement is a partner with the group, then its entirely possible the Police and the City can get tagged as well.

There is absolutely nothing that can be done to bring this kid back. Focus the anger in a direction that can be changed to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Originally posted by femalepharoe
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

I love it when people give you back ground information on their personal experiences not knowing WHO the other person is or WHAT qualifications they have

The problem is with NO arrest being made. As you so articulatly stated - we are not a jury - so THUS the "stand your ground law" that is being thrown about is saved for a trial and conviction in a defense case. and NOT a lack of arrest or being taken into police custody.. Don't you agree?

But on the stand your ground law - that makes you glean that Zimmerman was lawful in his shooting; let us take a peak.

My turn:

www.leg.state.fl.us.../0776/Sections/0776.013.html

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
---------------------Is not applicable to Trayvon

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
---------------------Zimmerman did not see Trayvon in the act of a forcible entry. He may have BELIEVED that one "had occured" - but then one would have to question why this was his belief. Which brings us to the race question

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
------------------Key element. Trayvon was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in a location that he has a right to be in. Thus the stand your ground law for Zimmerman is null.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.


As we can see by the facts - Trayvon was not in the act of a crime, he had a right to be where he was,and he was not an agressor (an aggressor meaning a initiator of conflict through physical OR VERBAL means ). the "stand your ground law" is ineffective in this situation.

I decided to repost this as it seems most of you have missed it.
2nd.

According to the Miami Herald, the state legislators who sponsored Florida's "stand your ground" deadly-force law, are calling for the arrest of Zimmerman.

Former Sen. Peadon stated, " He has no protection under my law. The guy lost his defense right then, When he said ‘I’m following him,’ he lost his defense.”

His co-sponser Sen. Baxly added, "There's nothing in this statute that authorizes you to pursue and confront people, particularly if law enforcement has told you to stay put. I don't see why this statute is being challenged in this case. That is to prevent you from being attacked by other people."

These are the two Senators who sponsored the "stand your ground" legislation so I am certain they know what the intent of that law is.

As Sen. Peadon said, he lost his defense the moment he started following the victim.

Lets say I am in Florida right now. I see an attractive young lady walking down the street. I decide that I would like to do you know what to her so I start to follow her then I jump her and proceed to rape her. During the rape she somehow pulls out a knife on me. I feel scared and threatened now so I take out my gun and blow her brains out.

Hey, I felt scared.

I was acting in self defense.

Crazy analogy?

Originally posted by Classified Info
According to the Miami Herald, the state legislators who sponsored Florida's "stand your ground" deadly-force law, are calling for the arrest of Zimmerman.

Former Sen. Peadon stated, " He has no protection under my law. The guy lost his defense right then, When he said ‘I’m following him,’ he lost his defense.”

His co-sponser Sen. Baxly added, "There's nothing in this statute that authorizes you to pursue and confront people, particularly if law enforcement has told you to stay put. I don't see why this statute is being challenged in this case. That is to prevent you from being attacked by other people."

These are the two Senators who sponsored the "stand your ground" legislation so I am certain they know what the intent of that law is.

As Sen. Peadon said, he lost his defense the moment he started following the victim.

Lets say I am in Florida right now. I see an attractive young lady walking down the street. I decide that I would like to do you know what to her so I start to follow her then I jump her and proceed to rape her. During the rape she somehow pulls out a knife on me. I feel scared and threatened now so I take out my gun and blow her brains out.

Hey, I felt scared.

I was acting in self defense.

Crazy analogy?

Thank you for posting this. This "stand your ground" law seems to be the biggest issue with this case, yet it clearly does not apply because Zimmerman actively pursued Trayvon. The minute he did that, the law no longer applied to him.

And thank you for the analogy. It's along the same (completely ridiculous) lines that this case is on as well. If you actively pursue someone and end up killing that person, that law does not apply any longer.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by jrod

 

Zimmerman is not a member of law enforcement nor was he operating a motor vehicle when the incident occurred. He cannot be forced to provide a breath blood or urine sample.

Hold your ponies there for a second. Zimmerman was in fact operating a motor vehicle moments before this incident occurred. If, as others have stated in many articles, he did sound intoxicated, that means while he was on the phone with the 9-11 operator, before he got out of his vehicle to actively pursue Martin, Zimmerman was operating a vehicle under the influence. Therefore, he should have been tested.
Nowadays, if you even have 2 or 3 beers, and sit in your car with the engine on waiting for a taxi in a parking lot, you can be arrested for operating a motor vehicle under the influence. The fact that multiple people stated he sounded intoxicated and the fact that he was driving a vehicle before he pursued Martin on foot should be more than enough grounds for any sort of drug or alcohol test.

Hell, my father was arrested a few years back for sitting in his car after a few drinks with the keys in the ignition waiting for my brother and I to pick him up for "operating a vehicle while under the influence".

As tensions between community leaders and residents in Sanford, Fla., reach a boiling point, the man leading the investigation into the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin is being asked to step down.

During a heated special meeting regarding the death of the unarmed teen, who was allegedly shot and killed by self-appointed neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman, Sanford city commissioners conducted a vote of "no confidence" against embattled Police Chief Billy Lee. Three of five commissioners voted against the chief.

abc

reply to post by Kali74


Thank you for posting this article. I hadn't seen it yet, but I know someone above touched on this topic a little bit. Again, thank you.

It seems things are starting to go in the right direction with this case.

Well, me personally: Im not racist. I hate everyone equally. =)

reply to post by Believer101


I will split the difference with you on this - It is irrelevant if Mr. Zimmerman was in a vehicle or if he was out of the vehicle. You cannot force and individual to give a blood, breath or urine sample. It is a 4th amendment violation as it would be forced with no court order. It would also be a 5h amendment violation as it would be forcing the individual to provide evidence against himself. We can delve into the fruit of the poisonous tree area as well but you get the idea.

The only time law enforcement can order a blood / breath or urine sample absent a court order / warrant is if the person in question was involved in a motor vehicle accident as a driver and only if he is unconscious (part of implied consent).

Outside of that, its a non starter and at this point in time, not a relevant factor.

reply to post by Classified Info


This is a good sign as the legislature is taking notice that there is a flaw in the law. The problem with their argument though is how that law has been interpreted by the Florida Courts. In order to correct the flaw, they will be required to go back and make the changes.

How a law is enforced / interpreted and how it is applied falls to the Executive and Judicial. The issue that crops up the most is when a law is passed that is then defined / refined by case law and the local / state / federal appeals level.

Just because the sponsors of the law state the law does not cover Mr. Zimmerman's actions, it does not take into account case law that has affected the law.

As a side note I want to point out again that I dont agree with Mr. Zimmerman's actions. I think he escalated the situation and forced it into a deadly force situation by his own stupidity. What I am stating is just because we think Zimmerman's actions are criminal does not make it so.

At this point and based on the law / case law he is going to walk. Any changes that are made to the law cannot be retroactively applied to this situation (ex post facto violation of the Constitution). It is possible to to charge Mr. Zimmerman with other crimes (if any others were made that night by him during the encounter). The problem with that scenario is he would have grounds to argue prosecutorial misconduct as well as due process violations as it would appear the prosecution is based on public opinion and not the law.

reply to post by Kali74


reply to post by Believer101


An interesting decision on the part of the city but it won't solve the problem. To me the action looks like they are gearing up for the lawsuit and have every intention of laying the blame at the feet of the Chief. Im not really sure why since he cannot force charges to be brought either. Lets look at this from a different perspective.

If Mr. Zimmerman was arrested that night, he would have been released after 24 hours +/- depending on Florida law. Arrest, no arrest, as I stated only the PA can decide to prosecute the case.

As I have stated a few times now. The law is flawed and needs to be corrected. Mr. Zimmerman claimed self defense and as I stated earlier unless there were witnesses who saw, not heard but saw, what occurred the police are forced to take Mr. Zimmerman's story as valid. Now if they start finding flaws in his version of events then it will be easier to discredit and confront Mr. Zimmerman, which could then result in charges (making a false statement to police etc etc etc).

reply to post by KeliOnyx


I'm not saying he went searching for a person to kill. I am saying that you are not allowed to chase down a person and physically confront them. If there is no evidence a crime has been committed, and they are not in the process of committing a crime against you or another person, such an action is called assault. If Florida allows for the instigator to use lethal force in defense, Florida does have a problem with the law. (That comes from a guy that carries and is a staunch defender of victims rights.) It would also be the only state I know of that allows a person instigating a physical confrontation to kill some one.

At the very least Zimmerman should be in jail under a large secured bond while things are sorted out.

reply to post by Xcathdra


The way I'm understanding things is that it can't be self defense because Zimmerman pursued Martin even against 911 dispatch instructions thus the stand your ground law cannot be applied which is what most people are upset about, the either complete incompetence of these particular officers and their superiors to thoroughly investigate, or the unwillingness. Either way I don't think any interpretation of the particular law lends itself to just naively believe anyone stating that they killed someone was in self defense, it's ludicrous.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Xcathdra you make some great points. The problem is that at least once he admitted he was pursuing the person. I know that where I live that makes Zimmerman the aggressor. He should have laid back, followed, and reported updates of the kid's location.

How is it different in Florida? It seems like a game of semantics, but their is a big difference between following and pursuing. Pursuing is the act of going after someone with the intention of capturing them. Following is keeping an eye on their movement to see what actions they take.

That is the big point I haven't seen addressed any where.

ETA!!!!!!
Zimmerman actually did say he was following Trayvon and not pursuing him. This just goes to show that we should check primary sources, when possible.

Every article I have read said he admitted to "pursuing" Trayvon. The 911 tape shows the dispatcher asking if Zimmerman is following Trayvon. Zimmerman says yes. There is a huge difference between following and pursuing a person. It is indicative of two different mindsets and actions.

Remember to make sure you verify the opinion and spin with the source material. Does this change my opinion? No. It does make me question the coverage of the incident though. I will need to do more research.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Are you for real???

Is the watch Captain racist? - He is the only person who can answer that question. If anyone else states he is its incumbent upon them to back the claim with actual directly witnessed examples.

Did you not hear on the tape where he clearly said "F****** C***"?"

You know someone mentioned that we are ALL racists. I disagree but submit that most folks harbor racist attitudes. I will further state that even the most racist folks usually do not utter racist epithets out loudly. This casts a poor light unto Mr. Zimmerman's character, irrespective of how many good deeds his friends and family claim he is responsible for.

The case against him is mounting as we speak. What he did was despicable, reprehensible and wanton, not to mention he disobeyed the dispatcher and instead sought out a direct confrontation with the youth in question.

However way we may choose to spin this, it doesn't really look good for him.