Trayvon

[Gordon Gray]

timm,

My understanding is that the jury had to make a decision based on a very narrow set of facts and applicable statutes, those facts / statutes being what happened after GZ initiated the conflict. And within that very limited context, my sense is that the jury's verdict is defensible.

The broader issue, from a statutory perspective, is the meaning and intent of the "stand your ground" law. Wyoming's law applies to trespassing on one's own personal property. Florida's law is obviously much broader. Almost a license to kill if you can prove self defense after you "started" the fight.

The broader issue, from a social / ethnic / practical perspective is pretty scary. Parents have to tell their kids to never take the same route when walking, don't go through this or that neighborhood, don't walk suspiciously, etc.

Regardless of what happens in the future and assuming GZ does not go to prison, GZ will be on "neighborhood watch", said neighborhood being his own personal safety and well being, for the rest of his life. Quite ironic.

GG

 

[Bernard]

timm,

My understanding is that the jury had to make a decision based on a very narrow set of facts and applicable statutes, those facts / statutes being what happened after GZ initiated the conflict. And within that very limited context, my sense is that the jury's verdict is defensible.

Gordon, I didn't follow the case closely, but from your statement the law absolved GZ of any responsibility for starting the conflict after he was told by the cops to back down. Astounding!

 

[Kevin]

I have seen lots a news coverage and comments on threads such as this one, that are incorrect about Zimmerman being ordered by the police to not follow Trayvon. I even read an opinion in the Washington Post by one of their writers stating that Zimmerman was ordered to stay in his car. Zimmerman was already outside of the car when a 911 dispatcher, not the police, made a suggestion for him to not follow Trayvon. The dispatcher gave testimony about this in court, and stated that they are not allowed to give direct orders, due to potential liability issues it could cause. So when the dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following Trayvon, and George answered yes, the dispatcher said, "we don't need you to do that". That is a suggestion, and not a direct order. But reading between the lines, I would personally would have known that they dispatcher was basically telling me not to do so. But didn't Zimmerman say that he did start returning to his car after this, and it was sometime after he neared his car that he was approached by Trayvon? I think I'm remembering that correctly.

I think George was stupid and showed a lack of judgement in what he did, but that isn't criminal. He followed Trayvon which was legal. He had a gun, but was licensed to do so. If George was telling the truth, and Trayvon came up and sucker punched him in the nose, and then proceeded to jump on top and bang his head against the curb, then the stand your ground law doesn't even need to apply, as self defense would have been enough of a reason to shoot, if he felt his life or bodily harm was imminent.

I just returned from Philadelphia to see the Eagles in concert. When asking for directions to some sites we wanted to see, the hotel service person told us to make sure we avoided certain areas not that far from those sites. Gordon, I agree that a kid should be able to walk into any neighborhood without cause for concern, but our adult group was told to avoid certain roads. I would bet that there are more streets and neighborhoods that I need to avoid in the US, than those that Trayvon should have avoided.

One last thing. If Trayvon was worried about "cracker" that was following him, why did he call his girlfriend instead of 911 himself? There was plenty of stupidity to on both sides of this.

 

[topofroc]

A couple of points...
- While GZ was not breaking the law by having a gun, was he breaking the law by carrying a concealed weapon? I'm asking because I don't know. I do know that a permit to carry a concealed weapon in required in some states.
- Also, while it's not a violation of the "law", it is a violation of the program rules to carry a weapon during Neighborhood Watch patrols
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-14/news/os-trayvon-martin-beth-kassab-031512-20120314_1_orlando-police-block-captains-zimmerman

I think the bigger point that is missed when the GZ trial is discussed is WHY the prosecution's case was so weak (at least from a physical evidence standpoint).
Five weeks passed between the incident and the day GZ was arrested for the shooting. Other than a few days of investigation right after the incident, the police did very little before concluding that GZ's version of events was gospel. Had they not (in my personal opinion) jumped to conclusions about the victim, and conducted a thorough investigation right after the shooting, I believe there would have been more forensic evidence available. By the time they were pressured into seriously investigating, the potential for recovering additional evidence was greatly reduced.

 

[twich54]

Is there something very wrong with this picture?

GG

speaking of 'picture' .....is it true that the picture we have all been looking at of TM is actually five years old, a more innocent looking twelve year old as opposed to what he actually looked like at the time of his death ??

the 'goofy' internet is trying to spread some picture of a tattoed rapper dude as Trayvon..............I think the world is going mad for sure !

 

[twich54]

So here's what I understand at its most basic level.

TM goes to a store and buys some skittles and a beverage.

another perspective.....perhaps not quite so 'basic'.....

http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=56&load=8689

food for thought...............

 

[timm]

speaking of 'picture' .....is it true that the picture we have all been looking at of TM is actually five years old, a more innocent looking twelve year old as opposed to what he actually looked like at the time of his death ??

the 'goofy' internet is trying to spread some picture of a tattoed rapper dude as Trayvon..............I think the world is going mad for sure !

is this true? Is the picture being shown (I know nothing of the 'rapper dude') when he was 12? If so....leave it to the media......

 

[topofroc]

@twitch54 - I had a chance to view the link you referenced regarding the trial. While I fully agree that (initially) the press used dated pictures of TM that did not reflect his age at the time of incident, I still ask - how does that change anything? He was still an unarmed child/minor under the law.

And the descriptions of Trayvon has "highly sexualized" and "violent" are prime examples of why whites and blacks see this case from two totally different perspectives.

I ask you, which of us at the age of seventeen didn't have "girls on the brain"? And not simply in the PG, Disney-sense, but specific thoughts about specific women.
Is that "highly sexualized", or just being a seventeen years old boy in the sex-drenched culture of America?

In the same way, how many of us at seventeen didn't wrestle or get physical with friends? A quick search on Youtube will find a wide range of videos featuring teen-age boys OF ALL RACES, mimicking the fighting they see on WWF or in MMA fights. The Jackass movies alone are documentation of the fact that young boys with lots of testosterone do dumb things. Has Johnny Knoxville ever been called out as violent, or just a goofy guy who's willing to take a lot of punishment on camera?
I ask again - does the fact that Trayvon may have wrestled with his friends make him "violent", or does that make him a normal teenage boy?

Why are some so eager to cast Trayvon's (what many would call) normal teenage behavior in the most negative light possible?

 

[goodwinaj]

Actions denoting character, rather than the hounding wails of injustice.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/2...ed-man-from-truck-crash-last-week-police-say/

Or from a source a little more to the left.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...ily-escape-overturned-car-in-sanford-fla?lite

 

[coolcobramatt]

speaking of 'picture' .....is it true that the picture we have all been looking at of TM is actually five years old, a more innocent looking twelve year old as opposed to what he actually looked like at the time of his death ??

the 'goofy' internet is trying to spread some picture of a tattoed rapper dude as Trayvon..............I think the world is going mad for sure !

Many media outlets were indeed running pictures of him years younger, without the gold grill, marijuana leaf hat, giving the finger to the camera. It took a looong time before those photos ever made it to the mainstream and then still the 12 year old Trayvon pics were used the majority of the time.

Why are some so eager to cast Trayvon's (what many would call) normal teenage behavior in the most negative light possible?

While the pictures I noted above aren't 100% evidence that TM was a thug, they sure don't prove he was a normal teen either. I've worked with kids most of my adult life and quite a bit with "at risk" youth, and normal teens don't promote drug use. Flipping the bird and taking a pic is just bad judgement but I can see any dipstick teen doing that. Having tools in your locker normally used to break into houses and getting suspended often is not normal teen behavior no matter how you look at it.

 

[Gordon Gray]

As I said before, GZ was not a "poster child" adult either.

It goes both ways.

The judge did not allow any of this (TM and GZ's past indiscretions) to be presented as evidence in the trial.

GG

 

[twich54]

Gordon, I was not implying that, rather pointing out what so much of the liberal media was trying to shove down the pipeline.

I trully believe GZ handled the situation badly, but I also suspect if faced again with that scenario he would have done differently, unfortuneatly TM will never know.

I agree with those that feel the 'stand your ground' law needs to be better defined so as to not include vigilanty acts, not that it supposedly does.

 

[coolcobramatt]

As I said before, GZ was not a "poster child" adult either.

It goes both ways.

The judge did not allow any of this (TM and GZ's past indiscretions) to be presented as evidence in the trial.

GG

You are 100% right Gordon. We have the luxury of knowing the "extracurricular" factoids though. I literally just talked to a female version with a similar attitude and I can tell you the instant combativeness never fails to shock. It amazes me that the younger generation walks around with an obvious chip on their shoulder and many are looking for a fight.

 

[timm]

As I said before, GZ was not a "poster child" adult either.

It goes both ways.

The judge did not allow any of this (TM and GZ's past indiscretions) to be presented as evidence in the trial.

GG

and my thoughts are - that if both of their past indescretions were allowed in - that the same verdict would have come back... only quicker.

I guess my point earlier when I asked if anyone could have come back with a guilty verdict was because I just don't see how anyone could - given what we DON'T know. We don't know who the aggressor was... We don't know if GZ feared for his life.... What we know is... WE DON'T KNOW.... So, given that - I am stating that anyone making judgements on either party is guessing... and anyone that thinks GZ is guilty of something would have found him not guilty (setting aside their emotions) if they were on the jury because of doubt or the possibility of him fearing for his life and the existing laws in Florida....

 

[Kevin]

I had someone in the community that I live in do something not all that different than Zimmerman, however, with much better results. I live in a very rural private community, and we had a resident that goes to work very early and she noticed a large pickup truck driving slowly past her home, and then it stopped, and then she noticed it moved slowly again to the next driveway. This was at about 3:00am in the morning, so she took the initiative to walk down the road and observe what they were doing from a distance when she saw them opening up a car door. She then called the police and the association president. They both went to where the security gate is to meet the police and noticed that the security gate had been run through. Luckily the police got there just in time before the vehicle was able to leave the community. My thought is, what if she had decided to carry a pistol, just in case, before going out to see what this vehicle was doing? What if the thieves spotted her observing them, and then came after her? What if she was attacked and then used the pistol to defend herself, killing a person in the process? Would she then have been charged with murder? Would it have mattered if they weren't stealing but were just trying to find a home they were visiting, but decided to attack her because she was following them? I was hoping to find an article that gave more detail, but this is all I could find. http://www.clarkedailynews.com/sher...rrests-in-calmes-neck-burglary-and-larcenies/

The sad case about this incident is the people were found guilty of destroying private property (the security gate) and for theft. However, because they had no assets, our communities insurance policy had to pay to replace the busted gate. I would have them working a chain gang while in prison to pay off the debt.