George Zimmerman to be charged in Trayvon Martin shooting, official says

so you are saying you wouldnt find any of the other people i mentioned suspicious? only peole walking in the rain with their hood up, yeah that sounds real suspicious. he didnt just watch trayvon and report him which i would have no problem with, problem is he followed him and kept following him even though he had reported it and tray was not commiting a crime. we do not need a nation of busy bodies walking around armed, calling 911 on every tom dick and harry that looks "suspicious".

I hate to sound like a novice, but I'm trying to catch up on this case. I'm trying not to jump to conclusions either. If I have a "fact" wrong, please correct me.

If Trey wasn't the subject of any criminal allegation, Zimm really had no business pursuing him. At the point the story goes foggy, Zimm is doing the right thing by calling the cops. Zimm, as I understand the circumstance, a gated community, should be able to employ a stand-off deterrence like a flashlight, I'm ok w/that. For Zimm, staying in his car would have kept his nose clean, so to speak.

I believe Trey considered himself immune from prosecution because of his age if he overreacted if he pounced on Zimm, and possibly, his own personal experience taught him that as well. I can understand too if he felt threatened....or insulted this guy followed him.

Here's the rub, Zimm PUT himself in a bad position! Having a gun with him, he should have known NOT to pursue some kid into the darkness (pun unintended).

How can it be otherwise? My state just adopted Castle Doctrine, and in no way does it enable vigilante action! Stand your ground means just that, stand, not pursue.

I'm done, thanks for your time.

reply to post by Gazrok

On the prosecution side, I'd argue that pursuing the suspect nullifies the Stand Your Ground claim.

They would have other problems with that angle
1. That he continued to follow martin after being told not to do so
2. They would have to argue that you are legally within your rights to assault someone if you think they are following you. Otherwise the argument does not work
3. They would still have to argue that being pinned on the ground with the possibility of your head being punched and banged against concrete would in no way cause great bodily harm.
4. The stand your ground laws are not really vague.

76.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

tl;dr version
You are not obligated to run away if you reasonably believe that you will be killed or receive a major injury.

Originally posted by Gazrok
From everything I've read about this case, it seems that the real problem here is the vagueness of the Stand Your Ground laws.

I'd wager Zimmerman will get off...because the law as it is currently on the books, is EXTREMELY vague in clarifying what constitutes one feeling their life is in danger.

I think a lot of it will come down to who has the best legal eagles. On Zimmerman's side, I'd argue that the law states he has a right to protect himself, and he exercised that right. On the prosecution side, I'd argue that pursuing the suspect nullifies the Stand Your Ground claim.

My personal feeling is that this will end with a plea bargain of manslaughter.

Most of the folks I know in Florida have stated that he may very well be let off. I believe that he needs to serve time, that he needs to take responsibility for his actions, but like wise we need to leave this to the courts, and if he is released, we can't do much about this, I won't be happy at all but this will be fact if that is the case. The stand your ground law is very vague, any murderer can use this law in their defence and from there on it will be the responsibility of the victims, victims relatives, to prove tha the murderer shot without 'defense'. How do you prove such a thing? The person who killed can simply plead defense and all of a sudden you have to prove them guilty? This law is broken, by the least they need to look toward ammending it and I don't think people will go silently on this.

I believe in personal self defense, I lived in a crime ridden neighbour for alot of my life, I understand why some folks have guns, I've seen family men carry loaded guns, I understand the need. But if you have people shooting other people on the street, people they don't know, and they can get off so easily by pleading defense? The dead can't speak for themselves, what kind of law is this??

Originally posted by Annee
Is there an official complaint from a bus driver?

Not sure, the school seems to be very tight lipped about the bus driver incident. Apparently he punched a woman school bus driver in the nose, and some say that was the real reason for one of his three suspensions. It's backed up by a tweet from his cousin saying "why you ain't tell me you swung on a bus driver". Apparently the school covered up another suspension for possession of a flat head screw driver and 12 pieces of woman's jewelry, which was reported and turned over to the police, but the school says he was suspended for spray painting ''WTF' on a locker. And the last one was for the pipe and bag with MJ residue. I think the school is trying to stay as far away from it as they can, given the volatile nature of the whole thing.

reply to post by Annee


Trayvons girlfriend NEVER said Tray told her he was going to confront Zimmerman. That is not a report. That is a bold faced lie.

I don't know where that person got that from , but I'm sure it originated where the sun don't shine.

I don't think anyone will argue this is a tragic and sad event on many levels, up to including the death of a teenager and the potential significant life-altering of another man's life.

Like I said previously, I'm withholding judgement; that's for the court & jury to decide, and with all this talk about bias I can't help how I feel about a situation involving an armed citizen that ultimately resulted in the death of another person. There has obviously been a lot of posts & threads about this shooting, but unless I just haven't read them, I haven't heard much from actual gun owners. Whenever there is a shooting locally, it is always interesting to get all the facts and circumstances involved. Was it determined to be a "good shooting?" What was the outcome? There are so many factors to consider. What did the Grand Jury decide? What type of case did the District Attorney pursue? People who are authorized to CCW play a thousand plus scenarios in their heads each and every time they carry. If they have not then the haven't considered the gravity of the responsibility of carrying that weapon. You're always asking yourself, "What would I have done in that situation?" What's it going to take to get me to pull my weapon and use it on another person? Because of Castle Doctrine, we know a shooting in our home is going to be viewed different than a shooting on the street. Additionally, Stand Your Ground, and other firearm legislation further complicates entire situations involving firearms. There are federal, state, and local considerations that warrant at least a thorough understanding before you even consider carrying a weapon.

From what I've read so far of the events, if I was placed in this situation I would have done all I could have to avoided the whole thing. Like alcoholics, they are told to avoid people, places, and things that may lead to alcohol. That's the approach I take when I carry. I try to avoid people, places, and things that would be made worse by the introduction of a firearm. That's just one of many philosophies. Moving forward...we have to remember that we can be tried both Criminally and/or Civilly. Even if a judge, DA, or Grand Jury finds us criminally not responsible, we could still lose everything civilly, even after being found not guilty; just the defense fees alone could bankrupt a person.

Considering all this you have to wonder if its worth even having a CCW permit. Risk vs Benefit? If you have firearms that are (potentially) expected to be utilized against another human being in defense, it is definitely worth it to look into purchasing Self Defense Coverage from an insurance agency. Most insurance policies will not cover injury and/or death resulting from the (intentional) discharge of a firearm.

Getting back to my point of avoiding situations...I will obviously not speak for Zimmerman, only for myself. And I'm not going to Monday-Quaterback his actions. I'm only discussing what I would and would not have done. I would have remained in the safety of my vehicle, while making the call to 911. I hate to throw around this term but I don't want to be a hero. For the past 10 years I was employed by a private air medical medevac service. We operated three helicopters and two planes. Well, we had a saying, "Im going home at the end of my shift to my family." We started every shift like that. What does that mean? It means we refused to take unnecessary risks in an-already risky business. I take that same approach when carrying a weapon. That means if we're in Wal Mart and I hear shots fired "somewhere," Im probably not going to go find out where. I'm going to secure myself and anyone I'm with and then the priority is to find a way out of there. If I can remain there safe without blowing up the store I'll remain safe and calm. If I have to engage a target when my options run out then so be it. Just like a home invasion...my plan is to remain as safe as I can barricaded in a bedroom with my family, call the police and inform them of my plans. If the perp wants to engage me despite all my attempts to avoid a confrontation, then so be it. Again, I don't intend to go looking for trouble. I have a hard enough time avoiding trouble on a good day and when I'm not armed!

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend (who doesn't hold a firearms permit) when Gabby Giffords got shot in AZ. We were at work when she got shot. He turns to me and says "wouldn't it been great if a private, armed citizen in the crowd were to taken out this gun and shot the criminal responsible." I entertained him for a little while. I put it to him like this. A year ago we had a Verizon shop "shot up" by a disgruntled old man. The perp was shot & killed by an off-duty LEO. I said to my friend, "What if I didn't see the entire event and all I saw was the off-duty cop shoot & kill the bad guy, and then I shot that cop because I didn't have all the facts?" I easily made my point.

Originally posted by DavidWillts
They would have other problems with that angle
1. That he continued to follow martin after being told not to do so

The order to not follow came from dispatch, not a commissiojned law enforcement officer. There is a difference between the 2 especially when it comes down to "obeying a lawful command". Also I ahve seen dsicussions that Zimmerman did in fact stop following, but since that info is conflicting we will need to wait for the court action to get the whole story.

Originally posted by DavidWillts
2. They would have to argue that you are legally within your rights to assault someone if you think they are following you. Otherwise the argument does not work

Following an individual is not against the law. So there would be no reason to assault / confront an individual doing that. Don't get me wrong I see the argument you are making, and to go along with the stand your ground law it seems it forces ambiguity / forces a confrontation since both individuals are covered under it.

This law needs to be reviewed and clarified.

Originally posted by DavidWillts
3. They would still have to argue that being pinned on the ground with the possibility of your head being punched and banged against concrete would in no way cause great bodily harm.

Agreed

Originally posted by DavidWillts
4. The stand your ground laws are not really vague.

76.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

tl;dr version
You are not obligated to run away if you reasonably believe that you will be killed or receive a major injury.

Florida Statutes Chapter 776 - JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

The section you cited is is just a part of the florida statutes for justifiable use of force. 776.041 allows an aggressor (using that theory at the moment for this) to use force, including deadly, if the person they are confronting reactis with disproportionate force.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Its compounded by 776.08 -

776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

It needs to be established as to what occured from the moment of contact between Zimmerman and Martin up to the point the Police arrived.

Florida law is all over the place and contradicts itself by making both individuals aggressors as well as victims, protecting both persons actions using the exact same law. The confusion it creates by the way it is worded must be resolved either by the legislature or the courts to prevent situations like this from occuring.

With all of that then we have this. Mind you the special PA charge Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder, which moves us into the Homicide statutes.
782.02 - Justifiable use of deadly force

782.02 Justifiable use of deadly force.—The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be.

Ignore the dwelling house section since the word "or" is used and you now have a different standard coming into play. If zimmerman was indeed on the ground his actions would be consistent and within this section of Florida Law.

You then also run into 782.07 - Manslaughter.
It specifically addresses what manslaughter is, with part of the section noting if the perosn killed in 17 or younger, which Martin was.

I can keep going but as I said the Florida laws are all over the place on this. Until we know for sure what occured we ar guessing. I am curious about what the autopsy report states. It should be able to determine the entry angles of the bullets, which should tell us if Martin was on top of zimmerman, or Zimmerman was on top of Martin, whether they were on the ground or standing up etc etc etc.

If it was top down (shooting into the ground) then recovering the bullets would be a bit easier than trying to check a couple square kilometer area.

ETA -
Here is the entire 776 Chapter from start to finish with no break

reply to post by Xcathdra


just curious i read on one of your posts that you do "this" for a living, what exactly is that and in what state? just wondering if you were insinuating that you are a lawyer and i was asking what state to see if its a stand your ground/castle doctrine state.

on to the next...here you post...

"The first PA decided not to charge for lack of evidence to support the charge..."

but you left out the fact that he originally thought he had enough evidence to charge zim until he was shot down from higher ups. that seems a little odd but for all i know it could be standard procedure. if you are a lawyer perhaps you can comment on this?

usnews.msnbc.msn.com...

Interesting I thought I had heard that the screaming from the 911 call was zimmerman, in this report it says Martin's mother confirmed it was her son. Hmmmm prosecution is trying to set the outlines for a scheme to say that zimmerman provoked the confrontation. Can't wait till there's finally a verdict.

Originally posted by hadriana

Originally posted by GmoS719
Isn't it a cold and funny world when you are ridiculed for supporting a murder victim?

So much in this case has been misrepresented and politicized.
It's been a horrid case for me - it's made me feel like maybe I SHOULD be more protective of my own race.

And thats exactly how those who are playing this out want you to feel , there'll be no winners and losers this time except when Obama gets to declare martial law when it all goes off this summer .

and for all those ringing their hands wanting blood justice for Trayvon - please remember that george zimmerman - just like trayvon is also some ones son some ones brother , try and imagine how his family have felt these past weeks.

I'm going to try and interject some sanity into this discussion.

First of all, GZ is NOT covered by the Stand Your Ground law. Both the writer of the law and the Governor of Florida when it was passed are both in agreement on this. In fact, the ex-Governor Jeb Bush called very early on for GZ to be arrested. You cannot initiate a confrontation of any type, then claim self-defense. It doesn't work that way. Once GZ got out of his car, he abrogated any rights to be covered under SYG, because he was not "standing his ground" but initiating a face-to-face situation.

Proponents for the law do not wish to see it attacked due to this case, because it simply doesn't apply.

Secondly, the central question centers around the alleged physical confrontation, and if GZ was in such fear of his life that the use of deadly force was somehow justified. I have very serious doubts about GZ's account. As anyone can see from the mugshot taken yesterday, his nose was not recently broken. This conclusion is also backed up by the lack of any indication of a broken nose in the video taken at the police station on the night of the shooting. No bleeding, no cotton up the nose, no bruising under the eyes; nothing. Conclusion: GZ lied about the broken nose.

There were also no injuries on GZ's head consistent with it being "pounded" into concrete. None. There was a small mark near the crown of his head, but if someone is bashing your head into the ground, the injuries will be displayed lower down, closer to the neck. Its not possible to injure someone on the crown of the head that way, unless you have them upside down.

Reportedly, the police did not have an ambulance come by to treat GZ because they determined that there was no need. If the "head bashing" had occurred, at minimum, GZ would have been taken to a hospital on concussion fears. This also is backed up by the way he strolled calmly into the police station. There was no indication of stumbling or being out of balance. His clothes were immaculate, and neatly tucked in. None of this would indicate a violent struggle to the point where he "feared for his life".

Also, the coroner who examined Trayvon's body stated that there were no marks on his hands or arms to indicate that he was in a violent struggle. If there was any physical confrontation at all, it was not of the character or intensity indicated by GZ.

On the eyewitnesses: I'm aware that at least one witness put GZ on top of Trayvon, while a conflicting view had Trayvon on top. It can't be both ways. I'll note that if indeed Trayvon was on top of GZ, and the gun was discharged at close range, there is no way possible that GZ's clothing would not display at least some blood.

In conclusion, the audio of the cries for help will be key. It has already been determined that the person calling out was NOT GZ. So, he lied about this, as well. The cries were followed by a gunshot, then silence. If the person calling for help can positively be identified as Trayvon, then the case for second-degree murder is confirmed. Under that scenario, Trayvon was the one crying for help, and then was shot by a person who was obviously not under any threat of danger.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
just curious i read on one of your posts that you do "this" for a living, what exactly is that and in what state? just wondering if you were insinuating that you are a lawyer and i was asking what state to see if its a stand your ground/castle doctrine state.

Police Officer - My state is a Castle Doctrine state with no duty to retreat. It allows the use of deadly force if a person breaks into your house and it allows the use of deadly force if you are being carjacked. It allows for the use of deadly force to protect 3rd parties as well.

It does not allow an aggressor to use deadly force.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
on to the next...here you post...

"The first PA decided not to charge for lack of evidence to support the charge..."

but you left out the fact that he originally thought he had enough evidence to charge zim until he was shot down from higher ups. that seems a little odd but for all i know it could be standard procedure. if you are a lawyer perhaps you can comment on this?

I think you are confusing the actions of the first PA and the actions of the lead detective. The lead detective has been quoted as stating he wanted Zimmerman charged. The first Prosecuting Attorney declined to prosecute stating there was not enough evidence to support the charge (manslaughter is what the detective wanted to charge him with, as the story goes).

From the reports there was quite a disagreement between the detective and the PA, resulting in the chief telling the detective to back off. Again, reported in the media but not completely confirmable that the events took place or occured in the manner reported.

Law enforcement can make all the claims they want. We can have a confession both in writing and on video but in the end, the decision on whether or not a person will be charged and prosecuted is the ultimate decision of the PA.

In this case based on media info the first PA said no...
The detective wanted manslaughter charges...
The Special Prosecutor is moving forward but increased the cahrge from manslaughter to 2nd murder.

I am not sure if manslaughter is a lesser included offense of Murder 2. If there are any people from Florida who know please share.

reply to post by 27jd


he was following in his truck, gets out of the truck to check a street sign, he continues to follow, at this point 911 tells him we dont need you to do that, george says ok, how did he get behind a a house that quick if he was only checking a street sign? first of all there are only like 3 streets in that neighborhood, he didnt know what street he was on, mr neighborhood watch has to get out to read a street sign? he has more holes in his story than a slice of swiss cheese! i am sure the prosecutors see this, hence their confidence that zim can and will be found guilty.

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
the only crime trayvon was that he looked like a "suspicious thug". i guess some people would like every "suspicious looking thug" followed and harrased. newsflash this is not the wild wild west or the jim crow law south.

No, the crime was if/when Trayvon physically assaulted a man for following him. It is NOT a crime to follow somebody you think is suspicious, it may be stupid but not illegal.

Stalking is 100% illegal.

reply to post by Xcathdra


it was my understanding that it was the PA that felt he had enough evidence for a charge and that the states PA intervened telling the lower PA to back off. does that make any sense? supposedly, key word being supposedly, is that this all happened the night in question. i will look for a link...

its nice to have a LEO'S point of view in this thread. if you dont mind i have a few questions.

have you ever been involved in a self defense case that let the killer go home that very night?
i know there is a code of silence among police but honestly do you think its possible that there could have been a cover up?
what are the of opinions of LEO'S in this case and are they split up among racial lines?
do the events in this case from your expertise seem to be going along standard procedure?

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
he was following in his truck, gets out of the truck to check a street sign, he continues to follow, at this point 911 tells him we dont need you to do that, george says ok, how did he get behind a a house that quick if he was only checking a street sign?

You already answered your own question, he continued to follow after checking the street sign and could have ended up behind the house by that point, the operator then suggested that he stop following (didn't order him to), and he said okay. He then may have stopped following, but may or may not have stayed in place watching to see where Trayvon went to tell the officer when he/she arrives...then starts to head back to his truck where Trayvon doubled back around and confronted him before he got from behind the house. That's what could have happened. I don't know, but all this on your and my part are nothing but speculation. How things could have gone.

first of all there are only like 3 streets in that neighborhood, he didnt know what street he was on, mr neighborhood watch has to get out to read a street sign? he has more holes in his story than a slice of swiss cheese! i am sure the prosecutors see this, hence their confidence that zim can and will be found guilty.

You've never been foggy headed, and unable to recall simple things when your adrenaline is flowing? Your body is pumping blood to all your major muscle groups, and your thought process is not clear. It's gonna take more than that to convict him of murder 2.

reply to post by macaronicaesar


Stalking, and following a suspicious stranger are 2 different things. Perhaps the police officer in the thread can enlighten you a bit more. It may be stupid, but certainly not illegal.

Originally posted by macaronicaesar

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
the only crime trayvon was that he looked like a "suspicious thug". i guess some people would like every "suspicious looking thug" followed and harrased. newsflash this is not the wild wild west or the jim crow law south.

No, the crime was if/when Trayvon physically assaulted a man for following him. It is NOT a crime to follow somebody you think is suspicious, it may be stupid but not illegal.

Stalking is 100% illegal.

Again Zimmerman was not stalking anyone.

Stalking - 784.048

This is the requirement under Florida law -

Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks

This was not a repeated willfull or malicious behavior between Zimmerman and Martin. It is not illegal to follow an individual.

Stalking is not a part of this equation.

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
911 told him we dont need you to follow him, he says ok. its on the 911 call if you havent heard.

Yes, Zimmerman said okay. And according to him he was headed back to his SUV when Trayvon confronted him. Which seems to correspond with what his girlfriend said, that Trayvon said he was going to confront him. And again, the 9-1-1 rep did not issue a lawful command, he was under no obligation to follow their suggestion anymore than if a credit card customer service rep made it. Saying we don't need you to do something, isn't the same as saying don't do something. Citizens are empowered to make arrests, although according to Zimmerman he was not pursuing him from that point, I wasn't there so I don't know, but what I do know is whomever initiated physical contact first, was who was most responsible for the incident. We don't know who that was for sure one way or the other.

Citizens arrest for walking.. hahaha.

Florida investigators say in an affidavit that George Zimmerman profiled, confronted, then fatally shot Trayvon Martin.

Florida investigators say in an affidavit that George Zimmerman profiled, confronted, then fatally shot Trayvon Martin.

the link goes to cnn where you can click to get the pdf