Trayvon Martin

[DrBubbaLove]

WilliamB,
Thanks for that. I can bow to your greater familiarity of Florida law as my info relies primarily what I have read in news and gun forums. I was aware of the radio thief ruling and it would seem many were surprised at the application of this law in that case. And even in the article linked there seems to be a lot people disagreeing with both the Judge's ruling and her interpretation of this law. I do not think chasing after someone was envisioned when they passed this law. I could see based on that ruling however why a modification to the law could be warranted.

I think we agree Trayvon could have had grounds to stand against an approaching attacker/threat. The problem is nothing revealed yet supports that he was being attacked or threatened to the point of needing to defend himself (or his property).

I do not agree that just following someone and asking them what they are doing constitutes a threat or an attack. Neither do I agree that one needs any law to make such actions "authorized". However, as soon as one threatens in any way or maybe even just touches the person being followed it changes the situation completely. Unfortunately we do not know anything about that phase of this situation yet and may never know.

I do not think a Zimmerman defense would be that he was "legally" "chasing" Martin under "stand your ground", even under this Judges expanded view. According to Zimmerman's 911 calls he does not think Martin has committed a crime and certainly does not indicate Martin has taken anything that belongs to him. Zimmerman is "following" Martin and asking him his business there because he is suspicious of Martin.

This is why I do not see Zimmerman's activities up to that point as either protected by stand your ground (chasing under Judges expanded view) OR prohibited by law, at least up until it gets physical or something occurs just before (did he threaten???). And I would think it is because neither we or apparently the police know anything about how that fight started other than what Zimmerman has stated and seems supported by witnesses, it is unclear to me how Zimmerman could be arrested and charged.

While perhaps unclear on Florida law, not a lawyer and not an LEO, I would be surprised that any law required Zimmerman to lay there and take a beating regardless how they ended up on the ground fighting. I do know that in many states that IF, IF it could be proven he started the fight (and not just by following or asking what he was doing) he could potentially be charged with at LEAST manslaughter. In my state taunting to enable one to then shoot the victim in "defense" can get murder 1.

The laws in this regard are complex and sometimes with many caveats. As you have pointed out Judges can overturn cases and apply novel twists on the law that lawmakers had probably not taken into account.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

All you state is mud
Yes, I see you do it quite often, when will I see an original thought from you without twisting words to fit your descriptions. Look below, and see your misrepresentations.

gee, maybe you can learn to quote quotes accurately,

"I think his mission was as usual, go out, seek suspicious persons"

"It just turned out that this paper target shot back, became to much for the unprepared amateur zealot to handle."

I just proved it

You use the word 'hunt', and your question is irrelevant.

LOL,
you are really going to object that describing "seek" "follow" "engage and bang" as hunt is twisting your words!!!!!
Posted your words verbatim before commenting on it BTW.
That is rich. Thanks for the laugh.

Ok, Ok you win again, am not worthy. Let's play your game. How is this?

How does a person shoot at paper targets without drawing a weapon?

How can a person be said to be on a mission to seek, follow, "engage and bang" a black man when following that man into a unlit alley, at night, in the rain with a holstered and concealed weapon?
Even most police trying to apprehend would be drawn in that situation I think.

Since you allege your words were twisted please define a mission to lethally hunt something without seeking, following, "engaging and banging" the intended prey?

 

[Faith.Man]

Trayvon Martin Case Looms Over Beating Of 78-year-old Ohio Man | Fox News

This is what happens when you rush to judgment before all the facts are known, and people like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Barack Obama incite people, offer bounties, etc. This is what happens when the Lame Stream Media manipulates the news, like selectively editing recordings (NBC). What happened to the 5th Estate? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

 

[WilliamB]

WilliamB,
Thanks for that. I can bow to your greater familiarity of Florida law as my info relies primarily what I have read in news and gun forums. I was aware of the radio thief ruling and it would seem many were surprised at the application of this law in that case. And even in the article linked there seems to be a lot people disagreeing with both the Judge's ruling and her interpretation of this law. I do not think chasing after someone was envisioned when they passed this law. I could see based on that ruling however why a modification to the law could be warranted.

I think we agree Trayvon could have had grounds to stand against an approaching attacker/threat. The problem is nothing revealed yet supports that he was being attacked or threatened to the point of needing to defend himself (or his property).

I do not agree that just following someone and asking them what they are doing constitutes a threat or an attack. Neither do I agree that one needs any law to make such actions "authorized". However, as soon as one threatens in any way or maybe even just touches the person being followed it changes the situation completely. Unfortunately we do not know anything about that phase of this situation yet and may never know.

I do not think a Zimmerman defense would be that he was "legally" "chasing" Martin under "stand your ground", even under this Judges expanded view. According to Zimmerman's 911 calls he does not think Martin has committed a crime and certainly does not indicate Martin has taken anything that belongs to him. Zimmerman is "following" Martin and asking him his business there because he is suspicious of Martin.

This is why I do not see Zimmerman's activities up to that point as either protected by stand your ground (chasing under Judges expanded view) OR prohibited by law, at least up until it gets physical or something occurs just before (did he threaten???). And I would think it is because neither we or apparently the police know anything about how that fight started other than what Zimmerman has stated and seems supported by witnesses, it is unclear to me how Zimmerman could be arrested and charged.

While perhaps unclear on Florida law, not a lawyer and not an LEO, I would be surprised that any law required Zimmerman to lay there and take a beating regardless how they ended up on the ground fighting. I do know that in many states that IF, IF it could be proven he started the fight (and not just by following or asking what he was doing) he could potentially be charged with at LEAST manslaughter. In my state taunting to enable one to then shoot the victim in "defense" can get murder 1.

The laws in this regard are complex and sometimes with many caveats. As you have pointed out Judges can overturn cases and apply novel twists on the law that lawmakers had probably not taken into account.

I think we're closer on this than once thought. And just to be clear, I think the stabbing case is absolutely rediculous and further enhances my opinion that this law is severely flawed and it needs to be rectified ASAP. Things are getting dangerous down here. The longer this goes on, the itchy-er the trigger fingers get. With the concealed weapons laws here...people are very edgy these days. Most just want an arrest so people can have some faith that vigilantism isn't going to breakout down here.

Again, I agree it's possible that a jury could say the rolls could reverse based on many variables but to attempt to set presedent prior to such a trial or a similar judge throwing the case out on those grounds, and not at least making an arrest, is just irresponsible policing in my view and certainly does not reassure the public that we and our children are safe.

I will admit, with only the facts we have to date, that your argument is a good one but only as it relates to creating doubt in a jury's mind. However, don't you think this case at least deserves that. I mean, laws are created to protect people and a neighborhood watchman who has been instructed at least twice that they are not to carry firearms (one by homeowners association and once by the SPD when he became watch capain) constitutes at minimum, reckless behavior and that makes Zimmerman a danger to his and any community and easily makes the charge of manslaughter, by definition, a no brainier in my view.

It's also important to note that all of us have the right to remain silent. Zimmerman, who's not even a LEO, certainly doesn't have the right to stop and question anyone. Now, if Zimmerman was dressed how he was in the police video and his gun was stuffed down the front of his pants (waist), as is being reported, Trayvon could have easily seen the weapon. At which point, Zimmerman does not have to attack Trayvon for Trayvon to feel threatened or in danger. And by the law, that's all you need to stand your ground.

I do still personally believe that Zimmerman was an over zealous watch captain and was looking for a confrontation. He profiled Trayvon and put himself in a situation to kill someone unnecessarily. This is simply my personal opinion.

That being said, with the evidence we do have, Zimmerman's reckless behavior led to the death of Trayvon Martin (manslaughter) and he should be held accountable, if not for the justice of Trayvon, at minimum to set a precedent that we the people will not tolerate civilians running around trying to be LEO because it puts us all and especially our youth in tremendous danger.

 

[Lovely Lane]

LOL,
you are really going to object that describing "seek" "follow" "engage and bang" as hunt is twisting your words!!!!!
Posted your words verbatim before commenting on it BTW.
That is rich. Thanks for the laugh.

Ok, Ok you win again, am not worthy. Let's play your game. How is this?

How does a person shoot at paper targets without drawing a weapon?

How can a person be said to be on a mission to seek, follow, "engage and bang" a black man when following that man into a unlit alley, at night, in the rain with a holstered and concealed weapon?
Even most police trying to apprehend would be drawn in that situation I think.

Since you allege your words were twisted please define a mission to lethally hunt something without seeking, following, "engaging and banging" the intended prey?

Meaning of 'paper target shot back' is that Zimmerman had no idea what to do when himself being challenged by Martin. It is so easy to go to range and shoot paper targets that pose no threat. Thought for sure even you could figure out the analogy but when speaking to you I shall slow down and use pretty pictures for visual effect.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Meaning of 'paper target shot back' is that Zimmerman had no idea what to do when himself being challenged by Martin. It is so easy to go to range and shoot paper targets that pose no threat. Thought for sure even you could figure out the analogy but when speaking to you I shall slow down and use pretty pictures for visual effect.

Understanding irresponsible and unfounded claims in childish analogies was not the question or issue being raised in asking you to back up your statements.

We note it took a while to come back with another personal attack in attempt to cover and dodge answering some simple questions about your STILL unsupported claims disparaging Zimmerman's character. Again easier to throw mud than support the claims you make, but apparently getting harder to throw to mud. Let me help, am white, NRA member, gun carrying, Catholic, and support the Pope and Priests (that should speed up your throws a bit).

The picture you twice gave and refuse to explain paints Zimmerman as being on blood thirsty missions to kill someone, even using words anyone else would sum up as hunting. The fact my questions about your statements are apparently so difficult for you to address suggests you cannot reasonably answer or justify your remarks about Zimmerman. Which was my point in asking and what your refusal demonstrates.

 

[Lovely Lane]

Understanding irresponsible and unfounded claims in childish analogies was not the question or issue being raised in asking you to back up your statements.

We note it took a while to come back with another personal attack in attempt to cover and dodge answering some simple questions about your STILL unsupported claims disparaging Zimmerman's character. Again easier to throw mud than support the claims you make, but apparently getting harder to throw to mud. Let me help, am white, NRA member, gun carrying, Catholic, and support the Pope and Priests (that should speed up your throws a bit).

The picture you twice gave and refuse to explain paints Zimmerman as being on blood thirsty missions to kill someone, even using words anyone else would sum up as hunting. The fact my questions about your statements are apparently so difficult for you to address suggests you cannot reasonably answer or justify your remarks about Zimmerman. Which was my point in asking and what your refusal demonstrates.

Ha ha, a very childish and irrelevant post as expected. You have one speed and your mental keel is warped causing to continuously veer off course no matter of which maneuver is attempted. Try dry dock for repairs,(read scripture), may need major overhaul, (self examination toward resurrection, taking off the old, putting on the new).

Common ground; I'm not Catholic nor do I support Pope and Priests, nor do I carry a gun, but am White and Life-Time member of NRA. So what? Labels don't make decisions for me.

And yet this case isn't about race, religious affiliation, gun control. It is about a zealot with gun, playing cop, ending in death which could have and should have been avoidable.

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

Her testimony can only be hearsay if she is asked something which he did not actually hear and someone else told her. Everything which she actually heard "is not hearsay".

We don't but investigators can take her testimony and see how it matches up with other evidence.

The only eye witnesses are Zimmerman and "so far" people who lived in the surrounding apartments which did not see the initial confrontation.

Biasness is the only legal definition of partial witness which I can find.


She can attest to how Trayvon's demeanor as well. This would be important
if prosecutors want to show that he felt threatened and that may have caused him to attack Zimmerman.

Who would think that she could testify to what Zimmerman actually did?

I believe that I have already said that.

You are right, I wrote investigators most of the time but failed to correct it here.

You mean other actual witnesses or "eye" witnesses.

I never said that she could testify about Zimmerman, at least that he was the man Trayvon was speaking of. She could speak about that.

No need to since I understand what hearsay evidence means.

Can you show me what quote that I made that caused you to come to the conclusion that I that I thought that she could?

It doesn't go round in circles if you stay with the facts.

That will be up to legal system to fully decide but the 911 call does show that Zimmerman was the one who initiated the stalking. He admits this on the tapes.

The 911 call lasts for about 4 minutes and the conversation between Zimmerman and the operator shows several things which either the defense or the prosecution may use in their cases. It would interesting to see how each side uses the transcript and how each will interpret what Zimmerman says.

A lot can happen in 4 minutes. He also made a number of other 911 calls over the past 12 months and investigators will pour through each of those getting a better profile on Zimmerman.

He is definitely not excited or gives any indication that he is feeling threatened during his call, if one listens to the call. He does call Trayvon or the people who he believes is breaking into homes, a-- h---s.

Since the end of the 911 call shows that no confrontation has taken place, we now go to the girlfriend's call.

Yarddog - I'm going to try and condense this again.

Can Martin's girlfriend give witness to any of Zimmerman's actions or even words?

What Zimmerman did does not constitute "stalking" this has been posted any many threads including this one - I will post the statute again if you request.

I don't need to pull a quote - You have stated that Martin's girlfriend is an actual witness to a possible crime, a crime that would have been committed by George Zimmerman. However, she cannot positively assert anything about Zimmerman as she did not directly observe him as she was not there. Therefore, anything she would say regarding Zimmerman would have to have been relayed to her through another source - Martin - , that makes her statements hearsay.

The perception of a threat was not at the time of the call, it was at the point that he was (allegedly) being beaten.

A profile is not necessary when there is no established Probable Cause in this case. I could see that happening and being relevant if there was an actual charge.

Note - I want to add that some news sources are calling Angela Corey a "special prosecutor". This is inaccurate, she's a State Attorney. She can become a party of prosecution only after Probable Cause is developed. At this point she is an investigator leading a task force for the State Attorney's Office.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Ha ha, a very childish and irrelevant post as expected. You have one speed and your mental keel is warped causing to continuously veer off course no matter of which maneuver is attempted. Try dry dock for repairs,(read scripture), may need major overhaul, (self examination toward resurrection, taking off the old, putting on the new).

Common ground; I'm not Catholic nor do I support Pope and Priests, nor do I carry a gun, but am White and Life-Time member of NRA. So what? Labels don't make decisions for me.

And yet this case isn't about race, religious affiliation, gun control. It is about a zealot with gun, playing cop, ending in death which could have and should have been avoidable.

This is getting fun now.

You are not going to answer the questions are you?

 

[Lovely Lane]

Not from you bro, you cut & paste, mix and match for a batch of misrepresentations, enjoy yourself.

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

This is getting fun now.

You are not going to answer the questions are you?

No, he won't. However, he will continue to make personal attacks against you while claiming his right of free speech and also claiming that any refutation of his arguments is somehow an offense towards him. I suggest you ignore/block him at least for the time being.

 

[Lovely Lane]

No, he won't. However, he will continue to make personal attacks against you while claiming his right of free speech and also claiming that any refutation of his arguments is somehow an offense towards him. I suggest you ignore/block him at least for the time being.

I knew sooner or later you would join the fray, couldn't resist could ya in seeing one of your own take a beating. Well, come on now, put down the doughnuts, show me what you got.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Not from you bro, you cut & paste, mix and match for a batch of misrepresentations, enjoy yourself.

I have enjoyed it, thanks.

Since you refuse to answer how "hunting" as a summary of your statement that Zimmerman is seeking, following to "engage and bang" black males is "twisting" or "misrepresentations" of your actual statements I guess we will never know what motivates you to say such things about someone you do not know.

We can only conclude that like your statements regarding me in this thread, those you made here regarding Zimmerman are without merit and merely meant to incite and inflame others over something one has strong feelings about.

So throwing mud is all you got?

We are left to wonder what is the point of getting all worked up and emotional about a position if one cannot intellectually articulate why one feels that way or defend the allegations you make about others. Oh well. It was fun however.

 

[Lovely Lane]

Your conclusions are from a false premise that you set into motion.
Fun? Yes, it was for you and ilk for that is what you do.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Lovely,
The problem here is a lack of any support for statements made.

Which premise is false?

That you essentially said Zimmerman was hunting black males that night OR that you refuse to provide a definition of hunting which does not fundamentally involve seeking, following, engaging and shooting ("bang") a prey to support your claim that I misrepresented your statement OR that you make emotional appeals and do not back them up?

 

[Yarddog]

Yarddog - I'm going to try and condense this again.

Can Martin's girlfriend give witness to any of Zimmerman's actions or even words?

No, and I haven't said that she could. She can testify to what she and Trayvon Martin spoke about. Martin did not know who Zimmerman was but her testimony can be used for or against Zimmerman.

What Zimmerman did does not constitute "stalking" this has been posted any many threads including this one - I will post the statute again if you request.

Stalking in what context and in whose mind? If Trayvon thought that Zimmerman was following him, which he was, then Trayvon felt that he was being stalked by Zimmerman.

I don't need to pull a quote - You have stated that Martin's girlfriend is an actual witness to a possible crime, a crime that would have been committed by George Zimmerman. However, she cannot positively assert anything about Zimmerman as she did not directly observe him as she was not there.

She is an actual witness. She was not physically there but she was cyberly there via her cell phone. She cannot testify that Zimmerman was there but prosecutors can use her testimony plus the testimony of Zimmerman to tie her testimony to Zimmerman.

Therefore, anything she would say regarding Zimmerman would have to have been relayed to her through another source - Martin - , that makes her statements hearsay.

Who has said that she can testify about Zimmerman? I have said that she is a witness and her testimony is not hearsay. I don't know why you cannot get Zimmerman out of your head about her testimony.

She was speaking to Trayvon Martin and what she says about her conversation with Trayvon is not hearsay evidence.

The perception of a threat was not at the time of the call, it was at the point that he was (allegedly) being beaten.

That is true about Zimmerman but Trayvon felt threatened throughout the ordeal, according to the girlfriend.

Did the final incident occur at the spot where Zimmerman told the 911 operator that he would meet the police or at another spot? This is a key question because it can show if Trayvon approached Zimmerman or if Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon. If Zimmerman followed Trayvon futher, then Trayvon was within his rights to protect himself and Zimmerman could be viewed as an aggressor in this incident.

Some questions which I would like answered is "How close was this incident to Martin's father's house?" If he was close enough, "why didn't he run home"? Why didn't he call his dad?

I remember when I was young and being followed by strangers and I would lead them to a place where my older brothers and I would have the kick some tail.

A profile is not necessary when there is no established Probable Cause in this case. I could see that happening and being relevant if there was an actual charge.

Getting a profile of Zimmerman can help lead investigators in either direction. We can only speculate as to what may be shown by the previous 911 calls.

Note - I want to add that some news sources are calling Angela Corey a "special prosecutor". This is inaccurate, she's a State Attorney. She can become a party of prosecution only after Probable Cause is developed. At this point she is an investigator leading a task force for the State Attorney's Office.

Thanks.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I knew sooner or later you would join the fray, couldn't resist could ya in seeing one of your own take a beating. Well, come on now, put down the doughnuts, show me what you got.

A beating? More like a tickle fest. All you did was throw mud, taunt people and repeatedly fail to back up your emotional statements. Outside of perhaps a playground, in what way could such actions be considered a beating?

 

[Lovely Lane]

'Bout the same Zimmerman received, you say a 'pounding'.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

So you agree now that Zimmerman was being beaten. Interesting.

Does that change how you feel about him shooting Martin?

 

[Lovely Lane]

You say Zimmerman was being 'pounded'. I say, show me proof. You have none, there is no medical evidence from that evening's incident.

Eyewitness account is vague, and our resident LEO expert can attest to accuracy of eyewitness accounts, or maybe not.