Racial Profiling and A Heartbreaking Tragedy.

I would hate to create another thread on this but I believe this little bit of information is still on topic...

Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law gives enormous leeway to people like Zimmerman to use deadly force if they feel threatened. Since the law was enacted seven years ago, justified homicides in Florida have jumped threefold, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Twenty states have similar laws, but Florida's is widely viewed as having the broadest application.

Any why, IMO, they should repeal this awful and reckless law.

In another ongoing trial, lawyers for Trevor Dooley are using the law to defend him in the death of his neighbor David James. In 2010, Dooley shot James in front of his 8-year-old daughter after witnesses say the two men got into an altercation on a basketball court in Valrico, Fla., when James tried to prevent Dooley from shooing away a teenage skateboarder using the court to practice tricks. Dooley's attorneys argue that he is protected by Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law and that he shot James in self defense. They argue that mundane neighbor disputes can turn violent.

reply to post by Kali74


A 911 dispatcher is not a commissioned law enforcement officer and has no legal standing to issue orders. The 911 dispatcher said, we don't need you to do that. That is not an order it is a statement meant to imply that LEOs can handle the job without Zimmerman's intervention.

reply to post by Jaellma


Just because they are using it as a defense doesn't mean they will be successful. Florida's law may need to be addressed. It may also be that the old law was entirely too restricting and had numerous justified shootings wrongly classified.

Only a study of both laws, and a study of numerous cases defended under new laws, can tell us. One case or two cases are really just a statistical anomaly. I think what we see in the Zimmerman case is unfortunately a shortcoming of the police.

That is just my opinion based on experience with laws from a different state and surrounding states.

reply to post by MikeNice81


I didn't say orders, I said instructions. Either way the proof of pursuit is right on the 911 call records. That alone should have prompted a deeper investigation.

911 can advise but he'd have been very smart and in a completely different place today if he had the brains to follow that advice.

If Zimmerman had simply waited for the cops who were already on their way (why else would he have called 911, if not to request police?) the boy would still be alive. Had this child truly been a suspect of something and they had a reason to actually arrest him, he'd be in jail. But alive. And if the police decided he was only guilty of carrying Skittles without a toothbrush, all Zimmerman would have to worry about is the next "shady" character to walk in his neighborhood. He could have patted his self-inflated ego on the back, kissed his wife and then went to bed with a clean conscience.

But no..he actively pursued the boy and was not put in harm's way (if you can call it that) in any sense until he made the decision to pursue him. At one point in the initial 911 call, Zimmerman states "he's running away." Why Zimmerman was not arrested on the spot is just baffling to me. Every action this idiot took was the wrong one.

This is no different than if I decided to drive around my neighborhood and then confront my neighbor for "acting suspicious," chasing him down and shooting him out of my own twisted, irrational thinking.

reply to post by Kali74


Proof of pursuit is that they ended up outside of Zimmerman's car. My point is that we have to be careful how we phrase things and approach things. Zimmerman said he was following Martin in the initial call. That tends to show that at least initially there wasn't premeditation to go kill.

To me it seems like he starts losing patience with he dispatcher and police because he feels they aren't reacting fast enough. To me it seems like it started as Zimmerman calling to report something and getting frustrated. The dispatcher tells him it will take a few minutes (iirc), Then the dispatcher blows him off. He basically tells Zimmerman that the PD doesn't need his help. (Obviously they do need somebody's help in stopping the break ins.) I think at that point Zimmerman decided he needed to take action.

That doesn't justify what happened. I think it does show that the premeditation part goes out of the window. Manslaughter is probably where this one fits in.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
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.

edit on 21-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

I was not going to comment on this anymore but I am going to.

This 911 call is either the original or has been tampered with.
I heard another 911 call online where the guy clearly whispers " F**king coons"
Now either he did say it and it was edited out
or he did not and someone edited it in and the media is now playing the mega race card

This whole thing stinks to high heaven

reply to post by popsmayhem


Dude.. you are trolling.
This guy is a murderer. The police told him not to pursue, he was not a cop he had no right to pursue.
Justice for the kid that died you idiot. Unarmed kid pursued by stranger, confronted by stranger in the dark, a stranger that was then trying to detain him, kid may or may not have took a swing, the guy shoots him dead.
The fact that you would call justice for this guy makes you look like such a fool.

Seriously ATS needs to polish up on weeding out these trolls.

reply to post by Jaellma


The stand your ground law doesn't apply.
He was told not to pursue the kid or at least that he didn't have to.
He chose to do that, he was the one looking for the confrontation not trying to avoid it.

It's actually not a bad law. Likely that second case the guy won't be protected with it either.
There is a good case of the stand your ground law. SOURCE
In that case the boy did everything he could to avoid the bully and when the bully forced him into a confrontation he stabbed the bully and got away. Then he later wasn't charged due to SUG. It can be a good thing.

Also here is an article where the author of the stand your ground law says "Zimmerman should probably be arrested for murder." SOURCE

Having followed the story, with some interest, there are a few points that should be brought up:

While this is a tragedy, and make no mistake it is a tragedy, the question is not on who shot who or the reason why, but should be focused on the laws that allowed for this to happen. Florida has some of the loosest laws when it comes to that, and ultimately even their statistics point out that this has occurred with far greater frequency than it should. There are many questions that are raised and too few answers to the events surrounding this, including what happened before and during the confrontation.

We can only get a vague picture of what all was going on, based off of what people heard, as was on their 911 calls and from accounts of people who live in the community at large, however, this tragedy has a far more disturbing underling story that is just starting to surface. For example, the shooter had a history of trouble in the neighborhood, and so why did the people there allow for him to remain as captain of the neighborhood watch, why was this man out with a loaded gun? Those are the questions that should be asked, not if this was racial profiling or not. Did he know that there were people who looked different in his neighborhood and community, or did he actually have a grudge against them? Those are the questions that should be asked, and so far no one is asking them.

Another sad point and testament to this, is that while this child was shot, and laying on the ground bleeding, why did no one do nothing to give him assistance, even hold his hand to give comfort to him, rather they choose to remain in their houses and hide. No one looked out, no one thought that someone might be badly hurt and dieing. No one did nothing except call 911 and expect instant help to arrive, that ultimately arrived too late to do anything.

If anything, this tragedy also shows the deep divisions that exist in the country today. The days of segregation are long gone, yet people still separate themselves along ideological lines, along the lines of sexual orientation and ultimately they still separate themselves along the lines of race. Too many communities are all one or the other, very few times do you ever see where there is a good mix of people living in the same community, where neighbors actually know each other, on a personal scale. Gone are the days where people could go and knock on their neighbors doors, for coffee or to borrow a cup of sugar. We live in fear, and thus this also added to the cause of this shooting. One must wonder, that if the community was a lot closer, if they knew each other, if this tragedy would have happened. Or would it have been still the same sort of tragedy that happened.

The final question, is that after all is said and done, is the person, George Zimmerman, still watch captain, and does he still have a loaded gun, patrolling the streets like some lone vigilante?

And with stories like this the majority of people in the US still seem to thing that gun control is a bad thing?!
insanity.

So how come no one even touched my post on the 911 call?

Originally I heard the 911 call where I clearly heard him say Fing coons.

Now the video of the call posted in this thread is so distorted you cannot make it out.

Ther one I heard on Anderson Cooper last night was proffessionally altered to bring it out and it was still inaudible.

SOMETHING STINKS FOLKS

reply to post by Ameliaair


Maybe he said it maybe he didn't.
He still murdered the kid with no real motive except he was playing Johnny Law.
If they want to try to use racism as a motive it won't change the fact of the matter.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Ameliaair

 

Maybe he said it maybe he didn't.
He still murdered the kid with no real motive except he was playing Johnny Law.
If they want to try to use racism as a motive it won't change the fact of the matter.

glad u feel this way

see my new post
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Ameliaair


I am speaking as a college trained audio engineer that spent several years doing it for a living. (I work for a LEA now, life changes.)

The part where he allegedly says, "coons" is an audio artifact that is unrecognizable. It is a lot like most EVPs that people claim. There is a sound of indeterminate origin. Everybody is so programmed that they hear what they want to because of their bias. Personally I could take that clip and make it sound like he was reciting Plato.

There is a sound. It my professional opinion it is his voice. However, it is too weak and garbled to be understandable. I have asked others what they heard. Depending on what I tell them is there the answer changes. I've had people tell me it was coon, goon, punk, loon, c**t, and other inventive things. There is a recognizable sound that may be a voice. Our minds will attempt to find a pattern and make it recognizable.

This case is starting to take on hints of the Duke Lacrosse case from years ago. Outrage is being built over the issue of race and people are starting to act more on emotion. The media will feed in to the anger for improved ratings. If that means they have to be sensational or apply a litle trickery they will.

I believe the audio in this thread is as close as we will come to the original. Somebody could go through the hopes to find out how to do a public records request for the 911 audio. (They might with hold it though because of the heat around the case.) Even then, everyone will compare it to the versions they have already heard. Being last in line any version a member posted would be questioned and probably dismissed outright by most.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by Ameliaair

 

I am speaking as a college trained audio engineer that spent several years doing it for a living. (I work for a LEA now, life changes.)

The part where he allegedly says, "coons" is an audio artifact that is unrecognizable. It is a lot like most EVPs that people claim. There is a sound of indeterminate origin. Everybody is so programmed that they hear what they want to because of their bias. Personally I could take that clip and make it sound like he was reciting Plato.

There is a sound. It my professional opinion it is his voice. However, it is too weak and garbled to be understandable. I have asked others what they heard. Depending on what I tell them is there the answer changes. I've had people tell me it was coon, goon, punk, loon, c**t, and other inventive things. There is a recognizable sound that may be a voice. Our minds will attempt to find a pattern and make it recognizable.

This case is starting to take on hints of the Duke Lacrosse case from years ago. Outrage is being built over the issue of race and people are starting to act more on emotion. The media will feed in to the anger for improved ratings. If that means they have to be sensational or apply a litle trickery they will.

I believe the audio in this thread is as close as we will come to the original. Somebody could go through the hopes to find out how to do a public records request for the 911 audio. (They might with hold it though because of the heat around the case.) Even then, everyone will compare it to the versions they have already heard. Being last in line any version a member posted would be questioned and probably dismissed outright by most.

So then the YOUNG TURKS NEWS doctored the original to make it crystal clear in order to propagate more racial division and hatred is the only answer

Originally posted by Kali74
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,

One of the 64k dollar questions... To play devils advocate we dont know how the contact occurred. Did Mr. Zimmerman have his gun out when he made contact or was it holstered? There are a few possibilities in terms of how the contact occurred that would met FL law requirements (going back to the overly broad law).

Originally posted by Kali74
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.

The police did investigate and thus far the evidence present places Zimmerman's actions into the the legal box of the law. Law Enforcement cannot force and individual to take a polygraph / voice stress analyzer. Its a voluntary action and the results are not admissible in court. Thats means we come back to the dilemma of taking Mr. Zimmerman's statement at face value. The only way around that is to either catch him in a lie, find evidence that contradicts his statement, having either an eye witness or security camera catching the event.

As far as dispatch goes that is another issue entirely. Generally speaking dispatch personnel are not commissioned law enforcement, which means they have no authority to direct a person to the mens room.

People are focusing on the police and I am failing to understand why. The Prosecuting Attorney's office is responsible for filing charges or not. Most PA's office have their own investigation staff (the ones in my area are commissioned as officers of the court with full law enforcement abilities). The PA at any point can initiate their own investigation and go from there.

Since none of that has occurred, it supports the position that Zimmerman's actions did not violate any law.

reply to post by KillerQueen

zimmermans life is over now , if the courts don't find him guilty and put him away , i think there will be many people out there who will be looking to avenge the victim .
he will never feel safe again and will spend the rest of his days looking over his shoulder .

Originally posted by MikeNice81
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.

At the outset no it doesnt make Zimmerman the aggressor. Since we do not know how the encounter occurred, its difficult to determine. We are forced to rely on 911 tapes and Zimmerman's version of events.

Example - Mr. Zimmerman reports the suspicious individual to police and follows him. That action is valid and lawful. At some point contact is made, and Zimmerman pulls his gun on the kid telling him to stay where he is. The kid, not knowing what the hell is going on, defends himself from a person pointing a gun at him who is obviously anything but law enforcement (uniformed or plain clothes we are required to identify ourselves as Police). Instead of staying put the kid defends himself against Zimmerman, lunging for the gun, pulling a knife etc etc etc. That action coming back at Zimmerman could allow justification for Zimmerman to shoot the person.

Im not stating thats what happened, but pointing out a possibility as to why the charge or no charge is a mess. From what I have read Zimmerman was lawfully carrying a weapon.

Something else to consider -
Tampering with a motor vehicle (breaking into it) or breaking into a house, whether its occupied or not, are both felony level charges. Another possible circumstance as to why he has not been charged.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
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.

From a civilian point of view, not really. They both imply the same thing - Person A is following / keeping eyes on person B. From a law enforcement view yes as pursuing implies that Cop A is attempting to stop Person B, whether on foot or in a car, that person B knows this and fails to stop, actively trying to evade capture / contact.

Private citizens can detain people, and that ability has a little more strength when dealing with a felony (check your state laws and some do not allow it).

Originally posted by MikeNice81
That is the big point I haven't seen addressed any where.

I dont think its been addressed because its not really relevant to Mr. Zimmerman's actions or status.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
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.

Yeah its in the videos I posted.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
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.

Again for civilians the 2 terms are pretty much one in the same.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
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.

edit on 22-3-2012 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)

Im not sure what your suggesting here. Are you stating I am spinning / misleading people? Please clarify for me.

As far as the incident goes, I am with the people who want to see the guy prosecuted. I think his actions are what forced the encounter, and I would even wager, based on his comment to the dispatcher, once contact was made Zimmerman most likely went into overdrive on his racial issues.

Thats an observation and my opinion. As for the legislature commenting, there is a possible reason for that. For starters its an election year. Secondly if you sponsored / co sponsored a bill, and the wording is vague to the extent of having an unintended consequence, do you really think the lawmakers are going to admit they made a mistake?

ETA - As far as your comment goes about Mr. Zimmerman being in jail until things can be sorted out is, respectfully, a movie effect. In real life, when I arrest someone and book them into jail for say Felony DWI, I am required to submit my report and PC statement to the PA within those 24 hours for them to review and prosecute by charging him with a crime (my state hold is 24 hours, other states are longer give or take).

At the end of those 24 hours if the individual is not charged with a crime, then he cannot be lawfully held in jail. You either charge him, or you release him.

Originally posted by Jaellma
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.

You read to far into / missed my point with that comment. What I am saying is, for legal purposes / hate crime, its not simply enough to state a person is racist. It must be backed and proven, especially if its going to be used to support charges / punishment modifier. Outside of a person directly witnessing Mr. Zimmerman being racist, its called hearsay and is not admissible in court.

If the charge requires the proof, and no proof is available, then the charge cannot be sustained. This is a huge deal because it moves people into the realm of double jeopardy. If charges are filed and it goes to court, where jury selection is completed / first witness sworn in (witness sworn in deals with jury trials), jeopardy attaches. The defense can make a motion to dismiss based on insufficient evidence.

Its one of the main reasons our legal system works as slow as it does when it comes to high profile cases.