Some being the operative word. I'm not wanting to be a dick, but with the lack of facts in this case, this thread seems like a moderators nightmare. Frankly, we don't have near enough facts to speculate about the nature of the shooting. Until the facts are released, which it appears won't happen any time soon as both parties are petitioning to have the records sealed conjecture is all we have. Either Corey has a bombshell that hasn't been released to the public, or Dershowitz is correct. My hat is off to the mods for taking this one on!
Zimmerman/Martin shooting
- Thread starter ACP
- Start date
- Status
Some being the operative word. I'm not wanting to be a dick, but with the lack of facts in this case, this thread seems like a moderators nightmare. Frankly, we don't have near enough facts to speculate about the nature of the shooting. Until the facts are released, which it appears won't happen any time soon as both parties are petitioning to have the records sealed conjecture is all we have. Either Corey has a bombshell that hasn't been released to the public, or Dershowitz is correct. My hat is off to the mods for taking this one on!
Loosedhorse
member
You are free to conjecture about what is true in the animal world; or in high schools; and about whether stares delivered in those circumstances have the same meaning as on a dark rainy street.
However, that wasn't my point. My point was: from what dependable source do we have this Wild West-like narrative that the two parties were engaged in a staring/challenge contest?
Perhaps that's on the audio tapes?
Of all the lawyerly-types who are arguing that SYG doesn't apply, none of them share your view.
Perhaps you've heard that both the FL state rep and the state senator who sponsored the SYG law have said that it doesn't apply to Z. Here's what they said:
And:
If you look at Alan Dershowitz's or David Kopel's arguments about why SYG doesn't apply to Z, you'll find the same: they claim he was the aggressor.
No one (outside of gun forums, I think) is claiming it doesn't apply because Z couldn't retreat at the moment he shot M.
In states like mine, the DTR starts way before you reach for your gun; therefore, in states with a SYG law, its protections would also start way before that.
barstoolguru
Member
I read through this post and I can understand the what a lot of people are saying but it will come down to one thing: did George Z think his life was in danger?
who is to say what one person thinks what constitutes danger when you are not the one in danger to start with!
is a 17 yo capable of committing an assault and killing someone in the process?
Did the 17yo attack Z like his father said he did?
Did T have a criminal background? Assault /kicked out of school/ FB page showing gang related threads?
something to keep in mind is the dispatch said for Z to follow but a dispatcher has no authority to command him to do so and Z (his father said) that he was looking for an address to relay to the dispatcher because he was in between buildings where there was no addresses
who is to say what one person thinks what constitutes danger when you are not the one in danger to start with!
is a 17 yo capable of committing an assault and killing someone in the process?
Did the 17yo attack Z like his father said he did?
Did T have a criminal background? Assault /kicked out of school/ FB page showing gang related threads?
something to keep in mind is the dispatch said for Z to follow but a dispatcher has no authority to command him to do so and Z (his father said) that he was looking for an address to relay to the dispatcher because he was in between buildings where there was no addresses
Ed N.
Member
I keep hearing over and over, on this forum and in the news media, that the dispatcher told Z not to follow M.
The recording proves the dispatcher said nothing of the kind. The words were "Okay, we don't need you to do that." http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html
Such a statement is an advisory that one's actions are not necessary; it is most certainly NOT a directive to discontinue those actions.
Furthermore, the dispatcher had earlier told Z, "Yeah, we've got someone on the way. Just let me know if this guy does anything else." <emphasis added>
Now a reasonable person could easily interpret that statement to mean that the dispatcher wanted Z to keep M in sight.
Since the dispatcher's exact words are one of the few things that are known precisely in this mess, could we please be accurate when we refer to those words?
The recording proves the dispatcher said nothing of the kind. The words were "Okay, we don't need you to do that." http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html
Such a statement is an advisory that one's actions are not necessary; it is most certainly NOT a directive to discontinue those actions.
Furthermore, the dispatcher had earlier told Z, "Yeah, we've got someone on the way. Just let me know if this guy does anything else." <emphasis added>
Now a reasonable person could easily interpret that statement to mean that the dispatcher wanted Z to keep M in sight.
Since the dispatcher's exact words are one of the few things that are known precisely in this mess, could we please be accurate when we refer to those words?
JRH6856
Member
A lot of evidence was available on the Sanford PD website until it was removed at the request of the State's Attorney. Most of that evidence has been archived elsewhere and is available on line at various sites along with other information. Here is what is available:
- The recording of Zimmerman's call to Sanford PD (not 911) and the recordings of 7 911 calls. Links to the recordings can be found in this Wikipedia article
- A record of the starting and ending times of Martin's call to his girl friend and her account of that call. There is no known recording of that call and I seem to have lost the link to the article with the full account. I do have this one.
- Tracy Martin's (Trayvon's father) account of what he was told by Sanford PD investigator, Chris Serino
- Copies of the responding officer's reports. (Wikipedia article linked above)
- Zimmerman's account of what happened as related by his father and Sanford PD.
- The account of a man not publicly named, claiming to be an eyewitness who saw Martin beating Zimmerman and heard Zimmerman screaming for help.
And there are lot of links here that may or may not be relevant
While it wasn't an order, are you really going to split hairs between "told" and "advised". They have been trained that direct orders don't always have the desired effect. If it becomes an issue, I'm sure their dispatcher training manual has it spelled out.
If you take it in context...again from the unaltered recording...that this was in response to Z reporting that M was approaching his vehicle.
A more reasonable interpretation would be that dispatch wanted to know if M's actions escalated or deescalated... trying to break into the vehicle or stopping his approach...so the information could be related to responding officers. They already knew that he was in the relative safety of his vehicle. My experience has been that dispatch will never as a caller of follow a suspect or to leave your vehicle unless it is more dangerous in the vehicle (if it was on fire)
Dispatch not wanting Z to follow is reinforced by their asking him to meet the officers at his vehicle
Accuracy comes from the totality of the communication...filtered through experience and knowledge of their training model
That's part of it; the other part is whether a reasonable person, knowing what Zimmerman knew at the time, would have believed the same thing.
A jury.
Yes, but since he was not armed, the question becomes one of whether there was a disparity of force, and that's often a very difficult issue for the defense.
Unless Zimmerman had direct knowledge of that information at the time, evidence regarding that question will not be admissible in Florida (or in forty seven other states).
JRH6856
Member
Just curious, which two would allow it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9BI03-MRKnI#t=128s
Dispatcher - Are you following him?
Zimmerman - Yeah
Dispatcher - Ok, we don't need you to do that.
There may be two interpretations of that exchange, but only the jury's will be relevant.
Dispatcher - Are you following him?
Zimmerman - Yeah
Dispatcher - Ok, we don't need you to do that.
There may be two interpretations of that exchange, but only the jury's will be relevant.
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
Here is a link to one article on the reviews of the audio tape of the 911 call in which screaming is heard in the back ground. Whoever is screaming is calling for help and the voice cuts off sharply as the shot is fired.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/trayvon-martin-911-call-audio-experts-not-george-160558328.html
Two known experts, Ed Primeau and Tom Owen, listened to the calls. Owen stated that there is a 48% match with the bio-metrics of Zimmerman's voice. He states this is well below the 98% match that could positively identify the voice as Zimmerman's. Owen does not believe the screams came from Zimmerman.
Primeau stated that he would stake his reputation that the screams did not come from Zimmerman.
This also jibes with the testimony of some of the residents.
The matches were made with the 911 call from Zimmerman.
However they do not have samples of Martin's voice for comparison.
tipoc
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/trayvon-martin-911-call-audio-experts-not-george-160558328.html
Two known experts, Ed Primeau and Tom Owen, listened to the calls. Owen stated that there is a 48% match with the bio-metrics of Zimmerman's voice. He states this is well below the 98% match that could positively identify the voice as Zimmerman's. Owen does not believe the screams came from Zimmerman.
Primeau stated that he would stake his reputation that the screams did not come from Zimmerman.
This also jibes with the testimony of some of the residents.
The matches were made with the 911 call from Zimmerman.
However they do not have samples of Martin's voice for comparison.
tipoc
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
Here is a link to the complete and unedited audio recordings of the Zimmerman and others 911 calls.
The multimedia section is down a bit on the left of the page. I encourage folks to listen to all of them a few times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/u...?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120321
tipoc
The multimedia section is down a bit on the left of the page. I encourage folks to listen to all of them a few times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/u...?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120321
tipoc
JRH6856
Member
Completed it for you
Thanks for the link. One of the callers to 911 noted the kid on top had a white t shirt. Zimmerman was wearing a red jacket. There is another witness that also placed Martin on top of Zimmerman. It will all come down to the actual confrontation. If Zimmerman did hunt him down and confront the kid, then this will not likely turn out well. Since it is very unlikely that he will testify, how will the prosecution fill in these blanks.
I still think the prosecution will have a tough time proving second degree murder. What is the most puzzling is why Martin didn't just run to his house and go inside? What did happen that night? We will probably never know.
I hope that they really have real evidence and not just a politically motivated arrest. If that is the case that this is simply a politically motivated arrest, then that is potentially the greatest tragedy of this entire case. If someone is a lawyer here on THR, I would really like to know what the prosecution will have to prove to get to second degree murder. Doesn't make sense from the little we know to date.
Thank you,
JRH6856
Member
Have you checked out Owens credentials? They're...interesting.
sidheshooter
Member
^^^Interesting or not, as an expert witness, the guy looks as serious as a Dick Cheney heart attack to me:
http://www.owlinvestigations.com/about.html
Not that he's going to be the last word on this case anyways.
http://www.owlinvestigations.com/about.html
Not that he's going to be the last word on this case anyways.
So shooting someone is self defense is a crime? Have you never heard of justifiable homicide? Why do you discuss self defense issues on this forum is shooting any person is a crime? It seems to me by your logic you are then promoting criminal behavior.
The investigation, like ALL investigations, is to establish if a crime is committed. Not to establish innocence of a crime. I would suggest you reread my post as it seems you didn't get what I was saying.
I never said shooting someone in self defense is a crime, I said killing someone is a crime. It seems like you don't understand justifiable homicide...you're confusing the crime and the defense to justify it.jon_in_wv said:
1. Homicide is a crime.
2. If it weren't a crime, you wouldn't have a justified version of it. Justifiable Homicide simply means that you were justified in committing the homicide
3. Self defense is an affirmative defense. It is used to justify the homicide you have committed...to make it a justifiable homicide
4. You have to first admit to having committed the homicide, before you can use Self Defense to justify it
If he doesn't testify, he won't be able to use self defense as justification for his actions...and that would make Second Degree a slam dunk.
I personally think he's looking at a plea bargain to Manslaughter
If you felt someone was stalking you, would you lead him to your home?
It is difficult to argue with that. Two things:
First, most people will interpret that in the perspective of their knowledge that the way things turned out, the consequences for Zimmerman were his being arrested and charged. It might have turned out differently: Zimmerman himself might well have ended up as the decedent.
That leads to the second thing: Zimmerman's conversation on the police call tells us that Zimmerman reported that he saw "looked like he was on drugs or something", "staring at him", who had his "hand in his waistband", who looked "like he's up to no good", "looking me over", and who had "something in his hand".
That's when the prudent citizen who is not a sworn officer on duty creates distance quickly and heads for safety.
Carl N. Brown
Member
How can you come up with anything directly related to Strategy, Tactics and Training, if all you have to go on is Martin's family lawyer's spin or media speculation, on the actual situation that was presented?
Why assume Trayvon felt he was being stalked? I have heard all the media spin based on the Martin family attorney's presentation. If the media can speculate negatively on Zimmerman's motives, why not speculate on negatively Trayvon's motives?
FACTS:
o 17 year old Trayvon presented himself on Twitter as NO_LIMIT_NIGGA and his posted photo shows himself with gold "gangsta grill" teeth. That's the image he chose to show the twit world.
o Trayvon was suspended from school in Miami for having a pot pipe and baggie with pot residue in his book bag.
o Trayvon was sent by momma Fulton to daddy Martin in Sanford.
o Daddy leaves Trayvon at daddy's girlfriend's house at Retreat at Twin Lakes, a gated community, while daddy goes on a date with the girlfriend.
o Instead of watching the ball game with the girlfriend's son, Trayvon goes wandering the neighborhood in the rain.
o The neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman, appointed by the homeowners association for Retreat at Twin Lakes, askes Trayvon "What are you doing here?"
Directly related to Strategy, Tactics and Training: you may never know the state of mind of whoever you run into in your neighborhood, and expecting a rational response to a direct question may be naive, even if it was the outcome in the past.
Why assume Trayvon felt he was being stalked? I have heard all the media spin based on the Martin family attorney's presentation. If the media can speculate negatively on Zimmerman's motives, why not speculate on negatively Trayvon's motives?
FACTS:
o 17 year old Trayvon presented himself on Twitter as NO_LIMIT_NIGGA and his posted photo shows himself with gold "gangsta grill" teeth. That's the image he chose to show the twit world.
o Trayvon was suspended from school in Miami for having a pot pipe and baggie with pot residue in his book bag.
o Trayvon was sent by momma Fulton to daddy Martin in Sanford.
o Daddy leaves Trayvon at daddy's girlfriend's house at Retreat at Twin Lakes, a gated community, while daddy goes on a date with the girlfriend.
o Instead of watching the ball game with the girlfriend's son, Trayvon goes wandering the neighborhood in the rain.
o The neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman, appointed by the homeowners association for Retreat at Twin Lakes, askes Trayvon "What are you doing here?"
Directly related to Strategy, Tactics and Training: you may never know the state of mind of whoever you run into in your neighborhood, and expecting a rational response to a direct question may be naive, even if it was the outcome in the past.
Last edited by a moderator:
almherdfan
Member
After Z determined that M was suspicious, did he employ a sound strategy? Was leaving his autobmobile tactically foolish?
None of this is relevant. Nor is anything about Z's past.
Did he identify himself as the neighborhood watch captain?
What training was he provided? What were the neighborhood watch's SOP? Was there firearms policiy?
The question I have is: If you aren't trained or authorized by law to look for trouble, is it good strategy to do so?
If you think there is a monster under your bed, do you crawl underneath to find it, or do you call out to those better prepared to deal with monsters? Children know the correct answer.
mcdonl
Member
This is an interesting area where protection, S&T and aftermath meet...
In "most" discussions we talk about strategy we are in the theoretical (If not theatrical) realm of THR where this outcome is maybe not the best, but it is a close second... where in the real world the events are over in seconds and the aftermath will consume the rest of your life.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
