17y/o Killed By Neighborhood Watch/CHL

[matriculated]

Where do you get a confession of a crime out of the recording of the call? I don't think there is anything illegal about following someone which is all we know that Zimmerman did at this point. Everything else is purely speculation.

For all we know Zimmerman followed this kid (bad idea obviously, but almost certainly not illegal) and Martin attacked Zimmerman leading to ZImmerman defending himself. But we don't know, which is key here. The police should finish their investigation and I think everyone needs to calm down and let them do this

If you want to claim self-defense after shooting and killing someone, engaging in behaviors that escalate the situation does not help your case. Exiting the car to follow your future victim doesn't help your case. Continuing to follow after being advised by the PD not to doesn't help your case. Chasing after your victim when he starts running from you doesn't help your case. Sure, after all this Martin could have turned around and attacked Zimmerman. But is it really an "attack" at that point? It sounds more like self-defense to me. If you instigated the whole thing with your prior actions, then you can't claim self-defense.

[rubio]

What's your evidence the person on the phone was a sworn law enforcement officer?

[matriculated]

By the way:

I don't think there is anything illegal about following someone...

Ok, good so far...

...which is all we know that Zimmerman did at this point.

Well besides the shooting and killing part, yea.
Following someone isn't against the law, but looking at the entire context is useful.

[txmatt]

Where do you get a confession of a crime out of the recording of the call? I don't think there is anything illegal about following someone which is all we know that Zimmerman did at this point. Everything else is purely speculation.

For all we know Zimmerman followed this kid (bad idea obviously, but almost certainly not illegal) and Martin attacked Zimmerman leading to ZImmerman defending himself. But we don't know, which is key here. The police should finish their investigation and I think everyone needs to calm down and let them do this

If you want to claim self-defense after shooting and killing someone, engaging in behaviors that escalate the situation does not help your case. Exiting the car to follow your future victim doesn't help your case. Continuing to follow after being advised by the PD not to doesn't help your case. Chasing after your victim when he starts running from you doesn't help your case. Sure, after all this Martin could have turned around and attacked Zimmerman. But is it really an "attack" at that point? It sounds more like self-defense to me. If you instigated the whole thing with your prior actions, then you can't claim self-defense.

If you think it's ok to physically attack someone who is following you and asking you questions, I don't know what to say to you other than you shouldn't be carrying a handgun. Again, we don't know what happened but to say that it would be ok for Martin to attack Zimmerman under that scenario is clearly wrong.

Zimmerman made a lot of mistakes, no one is contradicting that. I'm sure he is well, well aware of that now, and hopefully others can take a lesson from this

[txmatt]

By the way:

I don't think there is anything illegal about following someone...

Ok, good so far...

...which is all we know that Zimmerman did at this point.

Well besides the shooting and killing part, yea.
Following someone isn't against the law, but looking at the entire context is useful.

Ok, let me be more clear: the only thing we know that Zimmerman did to escalate/instigate the conflict was following Martin. What happened between that and the point that Martin was shot makes all the difference in the world

[matriculated]

If you think it's ok to physically attack someone who is following you and asking you questions,

Well, you keep saying that we don't know what happened and then just come up with that scenario all on your own. Maybe he was "just asking questions" maybe he was charging him like a bull. On that I'll agree, that would be pure speculation. Is that what happened? I don't think we know, I'll agree with your previous statement on that. But we know several very important pieces for a fact (it's on tape), and those pieces rule out self-defense. You can't pursue somebody and claim you defended yourself. That's escalating, not de-escalating the situation. Edit: Also, I forgot to point out again that Zimmerman had almost 100lbs on Trayvon. Disparity of force is a factor if you're going with self-defense, and here again, Zimmerman's on the wrong end of the self-defense claim.

I don't know what to say to you other than you shouldn't be carrying a handgun.

I assure you the public is in no danger from me. Anyway, aren't I the one making the case that the guy should be punished for unjustified use of deadly force?

[txmatt]

But we know several very important pieces for a fact (it's on tape), and those pieces rule out self-defense. You can't pursue somebody and claim you defended yourself. That's escalating, not de-escalating the situation.

Ok, this is where we clearly disagree and I guess I'll just accept that we do and move on. If I chase some one to ask them the time or to discuss the meaning of life and they attack me I believe I have a right to defend myself. You say that the fact that Zimmerman pursued Martin rules out any possibility that Zimmerman was acting in self defense when Martin was shot and I think that is wrong. It all depends on what happened and we don't know.

I don't know what to say to you other than you shouldn't be carrying a handgun.

I assure you the public is in no danger from me. Anyway, aren't I the one making the case that the guy should be punished for unjustified use of deadly force?

You said it was ok to attack someone who was following you. If you think it's ok to start a physical conflict because you are scared or angry or whatever then you are unfit to carry a weapon for self defense.

you said:

Sure, after all this Martin could have turned around and attacked Zimmerman. But is it really an "attack" at that point?

The answer is, yes, if you turn around and physically attack someone who is simply following you then it is an attack and you are the aggressor. Again, Zimmerman may well have done something to warrant Martin defending himself (for instance, charging Martin, trying to physically detain him, etc) but we don't know that yet

[PostShooter]

The fact is, no one, and I mean NO ONE, knows what happened that night but Mr. George Zimmerman. And if he has a brain larger than a walnut and a sense of self-preservation, things will stay that way. But I would always keep the business card of a trusted lawyer close at hand at all times.

[drjoker]

Zimmerman is a student at Seminole State College, where he is scheduled to start a criminal justice class on Monday.

Wow. I'm just glad he did not complete his criminal justice courses and became a LEO or the carnage would be greater since the police have "qualified immunity" from prosecution. A cop would've just had this declared a "mistake" and walked away with some reprimand on his job but no jail time (police have "qualified immunity" to protect them from felons giving them frivolous lawsuits). Since he is a civilian, he'll probably go to jail for 5-10 yrs for "manslaughter". Whether it is voluntary or involuntary depends on how good his lawyer is.... I would be surprised if he did not have to stand trial.

[srothstein]

the carnage would be greater since the police have "qualified immunity" from prosecution.

Police have no immunity from prosecution whatsoever and will be charged for any crime they commit. They also are usually charged at higher levels because many crimes (especially theft) get an upgraded penalty for being committed by a public servant. Police do have some immunity from civil lawsuits but that has nothing to do with criminal charges.

[sugar land dave]

After listening to the tapes, all I can say is wow! Would the neighborhood watch man be mournfully screaming for help then screaming in absolute fear of death, a scream that was silenced by a gunshot? That is one thing that puzzles me.

And who was wearing a white t-shirt? One of the callers said they witnessed an individual on top who wearing a white t-shirt. Does anyone else know who was wearing what?

I don't have a good feeling about this incident. If I instigated a chain of events which lead to the death of an innocent under such circumstances in Texas, I don't think I would like my chances at claiming self-defense to successfully avoid at least an involuntary manslaughter charge. But that is just my opinion and like most on this board IANAL, and my opinion is worth what I was paid for it. Not even 2 cents.

PS: Guys I agree with the mod. The thread was running fine then took a wrong turn. This thread is about the topic, not the OP or any other poster here.

[puma guy]

I've been away for a while and was shocked to see this veer way off track. I listened to the PD call from Zimmerman and the 911 calls and a near as I can discern Zimmerman had to have run after Trayvon to catch him and it appears they ended up in one of the 911 caller's back yard by the porch. That may be where Zimmerman got the injury to the back of his head. No mention of Martin having a weapon and I've never seen a fist cut the back of a head. Could have happened in a struggle hitting somethong sharp or hard on/near the porch. The other odd thing to me was the screams for help end with the gunshot. It was reported that Zimmerman was yelling for help, so was it "Help, Help, Bang! Never mind" ? An autopsy should indicate and injuries to Martin's hand/knuckles and at what distance he was shot. I never saw thing about Zimmerman's injuries being treated or a hospital visit, but maybe I missed it. I'd be interested to know what sort of injury Zimmerman had to the back of his head.

[matriculated]

The whole conversation is ridiculous, but I love it. A couple of people tried to take this thread and make it about me, but this is about Trayvon. He was a 140lb unarmed 17y/o kid who was shot to death by a 28y/o 240lb armed man crying "self-defense."

Think about this if you have any doubts about the perp's guilt. How would you feel if that was your son, your grandson, who got profiled like that and shot to death 70 feet away from the house? Or if he was a preppy looking white boy, would we even be having this conversation? We all like to pretend that race doesn't matter any more in this country, but a moment's look outside the window will dispel that wild myth. Regardless, let's pretend that Trayvon was an albino. Here's a kid walking down the street, when an overzealous neighborhood watch guy decides that he looks suspicious. We now know that Trayvon broke no law and only had candy on him, on his way back to the house. So Trayvon looks suspicious. Watch guy calls PD and uses profanity on the tapes where he called the police refering to the kid. Watch guy had already decided that the kid was a criminal who was about to "get away" with something. This was watch guy's mindset as he went to confront Trayvon. This was the armed watch guy's mindset as he went to confront an unarmed kid whom he outweighed by almost 100lbs. Armed watch guy exits car and confronts unarmed kid who was 100lbs short, lightweight unarmed kid eats a bullet, watch guy cries "self-defense." Puh-leeeeeeez! That doesn't pass even the basic smell test.

Legally speaking, disparity of force is an important concept in proving you were defending yourself. If you're able to get out of your car and chase down a kid, that tells me you're not a defenseless, decrepit invalid. Watch guy did exactly that. He had 100lbs on the victim. Yet he claims he absolutely had to shoot the victim because he feared for his life. He feared for his life from a 140lb kid? He just ran after the said kid. Why didn't he just sit on top of the kid? That would have done the trick. The kid still would have probably died from crushed ribs piercing his spleen and a crushed diaphragm, but at least the story would be more believable.

Watch guy has had complaints about him from other neighbors for being overly aggressive in his tactics.

Watch guy has an arrest record with battery on a police officer.

Watch guy fails the disparity of force test due to his overwhelming size advantage.

Watch guy engages in escalating behavior by pursuing the victim.

Watch guy continues his pursuit even though PD advises him not to follow and that officers are on the way.

Watch guy murders the kid, thereby making sure he doesn't "get away" with his Skittles.

Sanford PD is embarrassing itself the longer it keeps this charade going. Watch guy needs a comfy cell to reside in for the next several years and think about the fact that carrying a gun is a serious responsibility, and you can't go engaging in cowboy antics and murdering Skittled-armed kids just because you think they look "suspicious."

[apostate]

Watch guy has an arrest record with battery on a police officer.

Despite that, the local police haven't arrested him for this. Perhaps they know a few things that aren't in the press coverage.

Watch guy needs a comfy cell to reside in for the next several years

Personally, I don't know enough yet to have an opinion of his guilt or innocence, but perhaps you know a few things I don't.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The whole conversation is ridiculous, but I love it. A couple of people tried to take this thread and make it about me, but this is about Trayvon. He was a 140lb unarmed 17y/o kid who was shot to death by a 28y/o 240lb armed man crying "self-defense."

I don't see anyone trying to make this thread about you, but I do see you attempting to claim some analytical superiority in your pontificating. You are the type of juror I'd never let on a jury in any case I try. You form firm opinions and make legal statements based solely on grossly incomplete information and conjecture. You make inaccurate statements about Texas self-defense law such as the claim that a person cannot justifiably use deadly force if he followed someone. (Show me that one in Chp. 9 of the Penal Code, or in case law.) When someone disagrees with you or points out a flaw in your logic, you become indigent.

What is your background? Are you in law enforcement? Are you an attorney? On what basis do you make sweeping and, in your own mind, authoritative statements in your posts on this thread? And finally, why are you so unwilling to simply wait to see how all of this plays out?

Reread some of your posts and tone it down -- this is not a suggestion.

Chas.