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

reply to post by Xcathdra


By the link you posted GZ is at fault for stalking per the first line on the law: a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.

I'd say GZ's behavior from that night lands under Harassment, because clearly he caused substantial emotional distress, not only to Martin before his death but also to Martin's family following it.

reply to post by NoJoker13


That works if you ignore the word "repeatedly".

I really dont know how I feel about this whole case... Obviously I hate the thought that a senseless death occurred, but I cant help but feel troubled knowing that media/public outcry was the reason they arrested Zimmerman... I just wish the police would have arrested him when the incident initially happened, i hate that it took public pressure..... If anything, this could set a bad precedence moving forward.... If people dont agree with the police initially, they can complain, protest, get the media's attention, and who knows, maybe an arrest will soon follow...

Originally posted by 27jd

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.

how did he get back there so quickly was he running? that part of the 911 call was very brief.

i think zim will ask for a plea bargain. i dont want to hang the guy, i just want the truth. i think it would be in his best interest to plea bargain and ask for the mercy of the court.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
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...

A lesson for all of us when it comes to information and a confusing situation. the info I jheard was the origional PA declined to proesecute and it pissed the detective off. If a PA can prosecute and a higher level PA interferes, that would open up a whole new can of worms so before we go down that road lets try and confirm it (by confirm I mean new story that actually covered that part).

If the PA at a highler level intervened and said no then there would most likely be an investigation into that.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
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?

Nope - In my state anytime an individual uses deadly force the evidence is secured, including the individual. We would process the person for GSR (gun shot residue), document and photograph wounds etc from head to toe, the scene itself and any areas pertaining the the offense.

Even if the shooting looks 100% justified to us, the person is still taken into custody and the PA is contacted. In my state we have 24 hours from the time we make an arrest to submit our reports to the PA so they can file charges. If they do not file / get around to filing or we dont get it done and submitted within 24 hours the person must be released from jail.

Justification is dependent upon what happened and the level of force and how that force was used. Even if a person is violently attacked by a wingnut, and during the struggle the wingnut is knocked unconcious, the perseon defending himself must stop and disengage. If he continues to go after the aggressor after the danger has been removed, he can be charged.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
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?

Well for starters the thin blue line / code of sielnce occurs but its nowhere near the levels people on this site make it out to be. With any profession you will have people who are morons and perform actions that make the rest of the field look bad. When law enforcement does not answer questions most of the time its because we cant. As an investigating agency anything we screw up can come back and bite us in the ass as well as affect evidence collected etc.

I think a lot of the perception of corruption comes from a lack of understanding about Police operations, the lack of understanding that we are not a part of the judicial branch just to name a few. Again the corruption is there but I dont beleive it to be the extent people on here make it out to be. If you have specific questions in this area though by all means ask.

As far as a coverup there is nothing to cover up. Because we do not know specifically what occured from contact to police arrival, it forces the investigators to view Zimmermans version of events and to see if those events fit the facts gained from processing the crime scene (autopsy reults as well). To date there is nothing to suggest a coverup. If anything all of the information and actions brings us back to the argument that Florida Stand your ground laws are flawed.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
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?

There is no real opinion one way or the other. To us its another investigation although the conversation has been revolving around their laws and how they are applied in situations. Aside from that there has been no questioning of police actions, aside from comments on, again, florida law. Florida law prevents a person from being arrested / charged if the actions were in self defense and within the established criteria.

In the case in Florida the intial review by the first PA was in compliance with Florida law - Zimmerman's version of events and the evidence on scene supported each other. Thats not to state Floria Law is right, but under the circumstances its what the officers are required to go by.

A quick comparison between a civilian and LEO use of force -
A civilian uses deadly force - Results in a criminal investigation at the state level.

A LEO uses deadly force -
A criminal investigation occurs at the state level.
An internal investigation occurs to see if an officer violated departmental policy.
A Federal Investigation is conducted for possible violations of 42 USC 1983 (civil rights violation).
An independent agency is usually brought in to run the offical criminal invesitgation to remove any appearence of conflict of intrests / investigating one of their own.

A civilian can be questioned and has a right to refuse to answer with the added protection that a refusal to cooperate / answer cannot be used against him in court (Miranda Rights).

An Officer falls under Miranda but we also have a secondary warning called Garrity rights. Since we are quasi military with a chain of command we can be ordered to answer questions. If we refuse to answer that refusal can is is usually used against the officer for internal policy (IA investigations) investigations.

There is a lot more details involved but you get the idea. So when law enforcement opts to remain quiet or not speak its not always because they are trying to cover something up. People don't seem to understand that anything we say, even if its just an opinion, can be used to challenge the manner in wich something was investigated, all the way to defense being able to use those comments to paint the officer as racists etc...

Originally posted by NoJoker13
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.

There have been 3 seperate companies contacted to reivew the 911 tapes to determine if it was Zimmerman or Martin.

Of the 3, 2 have released their info whith one company supporting the argument it was Zimmerman and the other supporting the argument it was Martin.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
There have been 2 seperate companies contacted to reivew the 911 tapes to determine if it was Zimmerman or Martin.

Of the 3, 2 have released their info whith one company supporting the argument it was Zimmerman and the other supporting the argument it was Martin.

I want to see a link to a news source stating that a company said the voice in the 911 call was GZ.

reply to post by DavidWillts


Um there isn't the word REPEATEDLY in the first part of that law what I copied and pasted is word for word the law for figure A. According to the law he's at fault for harassment.

Originally posted by shepseskaf
I'm going to try and interject some sanity into this discussion.

good luck...

Originally posted by shepseskaf
First of all, GZ is NOT covered by the Stand Your Ground law....snipped for room

Neither the Govenor nor the Legislature have any say in whether or not this law applies to an individual. That decision is up to the court and will be dependant on the facts that we dont have right now that may show zimmermans / Martins actions in a completely different light.

Originally posted by shepseskaf
Secondly, the central question centers around the alleged physical confrontation, ..... snipped for room

First off when there are injuries on a scene medical staff is called, as was the case in this situation. The officers reports contained observations of Zimmermans condition when they made contact. When a situation is stable the investigation process continues but take a parallel (brief) path allowing EMS to check over the people involved to ensure there are no major injuries that have not been identified. A person who experiences a traumatic injury does not always process the signals. I have worked a motor vehicle accident where the driver lost an eye (severe injury) and his body was not processing it. He kept asking what was blocking his eye because he could not see out of it. He had no concept that his eye was in fact gone.

EMS will treat minor injuries and abrasions on scene and during that process will clean up blood in order to see the source to ensure its not life threatening. That happens before anything else - regardless of crime. We are still responsible for ensuring safety / life of everyone present, including a suspects. Once medical is done and the perosn is cleared we continue our process.

A lack of blood is not out of the norm since Zimmerman received medical attention on scene.
The lack of bruisning is also in line with the injuries. Bruising does NOT occur immediately.
A gash can be seen on the back of Zimmerman's head as he passes the camera and that has been highlighted by multiple media sources.

Originally posted by shepseskaf
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 ...

Law Enforcement is not able to make a medical determination and to deny medical treatment. Ultimately, depending on the situation an officer can do that, however it will violate departmental policy and once in cour the first question by the defense will be -
Officer So and So are you a boar certified medical doctor?
Do you have any medical ceertifications that allows you to make a diagnosis?

Even if we do, we are not allowed to switch hats, going from law enforcement to medical. An officer is not going to up and deny medical treatment because the person "looks" ok.

Originally posted by shepseskaf
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.

Prelimenary results only... The main autopsy is where that information is determined, including any foreign skin cells / blood underneath fingernails. Secondly it was dark out, the weather was not good. That makes it more difficult to find trace evidence until a person is back in a controlled enviornment. Since we dont have the full and complete autopsy report, we need to be careful on making declarations that arent supported.
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.

Originally posted by shepseskaf
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.

Actually it has not been determined. So far 2 companies analyzed the audio and one stated it was Martin and the other stated it was Zimmerman. They also supposedly debunked the "coon comment" people like to bring up.

The audio will be key however I think interpretation of what was said will be open to interpretation by the jury, if it goes that far.

Nothing about this case is normal... The case is going to be circumstantial to the extent the PA is going to be forced to interpret evidence to fit their theory and defense will do the same.

Its going to rely on which side present their version of events in the most convincing answer. This case is fr from over and we will see dips and turns when we least expect it.

Let the legal system do its job and go from there.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Could you post the links to these forms of study or the articles proving that... appreciated.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Actually it has not been determined. So far 2 companies analyzed the audio and one stated it was Martin and the other stated it was Zimmerman.

Once again, I ask you to produce either a news link or text content from an article stating that a company analyzed the 911 call and concluded that it was GZ's voice.

As for the rest of your response, there are far too many "what-ifs" in it, as it relates to procedure. None of my points were satisfactorily addressed.

Lastly, I do believe that the writer of the Stand Your Ground law, and the Governor who signed it into law have a very good understanding as to how it should be applied.

reply to post by shepseskaf


I'm asking for the same information we'll see if that surfaces. Since from the reports I've read Martin's MOTHER said it was her son screaming, which to me is more credible then some guy in a room analyzing a mans voice they've never heard before and if he ever produces those reports the fact that they didn't have a clear cut answer means they probably weren't entirely sure. I'm sure Mrs. Martin would bet her life that it was her son screaming I wonder if the guys getting paid would do the same.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by DavidWillts

 

Um there isn't the word REPEATEDLY in the first part of that law what I copied and pasted is word for word the law for figure A. According to the law he's at fault for harassment.

According to letter A??? Do you have a degree in Law and Order the TV show? You can't cherry pick parts of the law like that. But you are still wrong even if you just look at A because you would still have to ignore other sections of the law.

(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.” Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.

I mean if we just want to ignore parts that don't support our argument we can have tons of fun in legal la la land.
According to the first word of Florida's definition of "murder" Zimmerman did not commit murder.

Murder Charge in Florida:

Florida law defines murder as:

The

Originally posted by shepseskaf

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Actually it has not been determined. So far 2 companies analyzed the audio and one stated it was Martin and the other stated it was Zimmerman.

Once again, I ask you to produce either a news link or text content from an article stating that a company analyzed the 911 call and concluded that it was GZ's voice.

As for the rest of your response, there are far too many "what-ifs" in it, as it relates to procedure. None of my points were satisfactorily addressed.

Lastly, I do believe that the writer of the Stand Your Ground law, and the Governor who signed it into law have a very good understanding as to how it should be applied.

Yes, I would like to see where this information comes from, too. Thanks.

Another alleged part of the incident that hasn't gotten a lot of discussion, is that when he realized Zimmerman was "checking him out", he ducked under a porch and put his hood up, as if to hide his identity. If that's true, that would only add fuel to the 'looking suspicious' fire and give Zimmerman more reason to suspect he was there to commit a crime, or already had. It certainly wouldn't be the behavior of somebody who was just minding their business heading home.

reply to post by shepseskaf


They may have an understanding of how it should be applied, and this was not disputed by the poster. He simply stated, and truthfully so, that it is not the Governor's place to decide how the law is applied, that is the job of the court.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
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.

The evidence will be clear as to where the bullet entered. Trayvon was face down, if he was shot in the back, that would be clear I'm sure. One explanation for why it appeared Zimmerman was on top when the witness got to the scene, could be that he got out from under him, and Trayvon's body fell face down and Zimmerman could have then tried to see if he was alive or even try and revive him after the heat of the moment and not intended to kill him. If Zimmerman was on top, and shot him from the top down, and Trayvon somehow rolled over with Zimmerman on top of him, which seems unlikely, forensics would show that too.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Actually it has not been determined. So far 2 companies analyzed the audio and one stated it was Martin and the other stated it was Zimmerman.

For the third time, I'm asking for some confirmation from a credible news source that a company examined the 911 call and stated that it was GZ's voice.

If such information is not provided, one will only be able to conclude that you simply made the quoted assertion up.

I'm aware of two separate experts who analyzed the 911 tape. Both stated that it was clearly NOT GZ.

Originally posted by shepseskaf

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Actually it has not been determined. So far 2 companies analyzed the audio and one stated it was Martin and the other stated it was Zimmerman.

For the third time, I'm asking for some confirmation from a credible news source that a company examined the 911 call and stated that it was GZ's voice.

If such information is not provided, one will only be able to conclude that you simply made the quoted assertion up.

I'm aware of two separate experts who analyzed the 911 tape. Both stated that it was clearly NOT GZ.

Considering some media organizations have come out and admitted they edited the 911 call any analysis provided by the media would not be reliable. We will have to wait for trial on that one.
But the screaming for help does not really help either side.
If it was treyvaugauwn martin screaming for help it does not prove
1. That he did not instigate the fight
2. That he was not on top of zimmerman
If it was Zimmerman screaming for help it does not prove
1. That zimmerman did not start the fight
2. That zimmerman was not on top of trayvawn martin

reply to post by DavidWillts


Um no I'm not huge on law and order but I know enough to get by. To be charged for a crime you have to be guilty of one of the statutes therein law. Meaning Zimmerman doesn't need to be guilty of every single form of stalking, just one section is good enough. Just like if you look at the pedophile laws for the state, you can be guilty of a number of different types of pedophilia (child pron, abduction, etc.), just like HARASSMENT is a type of stalking and Mr. Zimmerman did FOLLOW illegally and caused emotional distress therefor he is guilty of stalking.