Zimmerman/Martin shooting

[Loosedhorse]

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.

Well, then, he needs to make his case.

To someone like me, saying that there's a 48% match is basically saying it's a coin-toss: might be Zimmerman, might not. Could go either way.

Lack of postive (98%) evidence that it was Z is not the same as positive evidence that it wasn't him. Not close.

Oh--even if he is an "expert", if it's his "scratch the seat of my pants" guess that it isn't Zimmerman despite a 48% match? Well, let's just wait for what the defense audio expert says, shall we?

Since it is very unlikely that he will testify

I agree with 9mmepiphany. My prediction: if Z does not testify, he will be convicted. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. You are not saying "Prove I shot him!" You are saying, "I admit that I shot him."

The only thing that stands between Z and conviction is the jury believing he had no mens rea, and only his words coming from him can convince them of that. JMHO.

When or where did a homicide stop being a crime?

Homicide is a manner of death. Criminal homicide is a crime.

at the end of the day, Zimmerman made a dumb choice

Sure. But legal dumb choices do not constitute crimes. Just bad tactics.

None of this is relevant. Nor is anything about Z's past.

Actually, it is ALL relevant. The past of the two actors speaks to each one's propensity to crime and/or violence. You can be guaranteed the prosecutor will present everything in Z's past they can to damage his credibility and to paint him as a law-breaker and a bully. And they have good material.

In most jurisdictions, the past of the deceased (while certainly relevant) is not admissable, unless the shooter knew about that past at the time of the shooting. Some jurisdictions, however (like MA) allow that information to come in (as Kleenbore has stated).

 

[Fred Fuller]

Setting aside the 'who stalked whom' aspects of this incident for a moment...

A few years ago there seemed to be this thing going around with young parents of children of an age when the children were just learning to talk and relate to other people, especially other children. The phrase was "Use your words!"

Said to an adult, the phrase could well be considered demeaning or insulting. Yet 'using your words' can in some circumstances provide an alternative to things like using your fists - or a gun. The thing is, we need to be prepared to use our words as carefully and effectively as we might employ any other weapon. Learning how to communicate clearly under pressure is an important skill, yet it's one we all too often either ignore completely or at best only pay lip service.

Consider the difference effective, clear communication could have made in this case, in the absence of other possible restraining influences...

Take a look at http://www.verbaljudo.com/ and consider getting a copy of the book

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by almherdfan: 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?

No, it is not. Not by a long shot.

It is physically dangerous, and there is a significant potential for extreme criminal and civil liability.

The sworn officer on duty must do so--he or she is expected to do it.

The sworn officer is indemnified by the community; the officer has specific procedures that have been tested and reviewed from every standpoint from civil liability, legal compliance, and risk of third part injury, to officer safety.

Demonstrating that he or she has complied with those procedures to the letter can keep the officer out of trouble.

It is highly likely that under those procedures, the sworn officer will refrain from even getting close to a potentially dangerous suspect alone.

The sworn officer on duty is equipped to carry out that duty; a radio, protective gear, less than lethal force options are among such equipment.

The sworn officer has far more weapons retention training than most of us.

And has been stated, the sworn officer who is not on duty will limit his or her actions to the cell phone.

 

[barstoolguru]

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

As much as your statement has truth to it; a man has a right to protect his property. if every time a man runs away from crime; the crime rate would skyrocket. We read every day people standing there ground (SYG law) and not giving the criminal a chance. Never the less he HAD a right to be there and THERE is no law that says you can't follow someone.

Could have ,would have and should have are the most used words after what “IF” the fact is the state and government are buckling under the race card and when you get the president saying “ if I had a son he would have looked like trayvon” sure does sway the general public against him. Not to mention the federal prosecutor that is an elected official ; how can she be bias?

 

[Loosedhorse]

As much as your statement has truth to it; a man has a right to protect his property.

Sure. But he also has a right to call the police and stay in his car. Absent imminent threat to life or limb, I think I know what I'd do.

If you choose to "protect your property" and end up killing someone, you now have the right to to be arrested, jailed, and put on trial. Not to mention your right to be painted as a murderous racist in the national and world-wide media.

Man: I bet that car was nice and dry and warm that night, too. :banghead:

 

[barstoolguru]

G zimmerman's dad talking about what happen. One the accusations were that there was a fight for the gun and there is evidence supporting this. The gun had a fired shell in the chamber and did not have a new round chambered. This happens when someone has their hand on the slide and doesn’t let the gun cycle. Signs of two people fighting over control of the gun


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFsEoZQY_NE

 

[Loosedhorse]

Signs of two people fighting over control of the gun

Just saying: in what way does such evidence rule out the possibility that Z drew his gun to murder M, and M tried to stop him? Do we have any witnesses who say the struggle for the gun didn't start with both M and Z standing, proceed to M fighting for his life on top of the supine Z, at which point Z finally got the shot off?

Understand: I am not saying that is what happened. But it seems to me that some are presenting such evidence as if it is proof that M had no murderous intent, when it does not prove that.

 

[barstoolguru]

George is not talking but his dad did and I posted it and maybe it will shed some light on the other side. as for what you would do, correct me if I am wrong but Massachusetts is not the most friendly gun state out there. What someone would do in a state that does not protect its people in a shooting is different then what would happen in a state that does.

Remember he had the right to be there, he was doing a job volunteer or paid. He at no time on the 911 call sounded angry, hostile or aggressive. There is no law that says you can't get out of your car and investigate... and by the way its FL and the inside of a car is warm and muggy

 

[barstoolguru]

Just saying: in what way does such evidence rule out the possibility that Z drew his gun to murder M, and M tried to stop him? Do we have any witnesses who say the struggle for the gun didn't start with both M and Z standing, proceed to M fighting for his life on top of the supine Z, at which point Z finally got the shot off?

If someone draws on you would you reach for the gun? Chances are no ; The common reaction would be to put your hands up in a defensive posture or run. Why would he need to pull his gun and I believe FL law says you can when a crime is committed during night time and it was evening if you reasonably believe your life is in danger. Someone will correct me if I am wrong but I think is pretty close to the laws of TX

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by barstoolguru: a man has a right to protect his property.

What one is permitted to do to protect property is very limited under the law, and it has been for hundreds and hundreds of years.

if every time a man runs away from crime; the crime rate would skyrocket. We read every day people standing there ground (SYG law) and not giving the criminal a chance.

SYG laws and similar appellate corut rulings (e.g., those in California and the State of Washington) were never intended to prevent a "criminal" from having a "chance".

Never the less he HAD a right to be there and THERE is no law that says you can't follow someone.

Yeah, and look what it got him.

He's in jail, and according to his side of the story, he was about to be killed or seriously injured.

...the fact is the state and government are buckling under the race card and when you get the president saying “ if I had a son he would have looked like trayvon” sure does sway the general public against him.

Off topic and speculative.

DO NOT GO THERE AGAIN.

Not to mention the federal prosecutor that is an elected official ;

Federal prosecutors are not elected officials.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Massachusetts is not the most friendly gun state out there

Depends on what you mean by gun friendly. We have no laws against licensed carry in bars or restaurants or sporting events or in the State House. We allow evidence of the deceased's past to come into evidence in SD shootings.

What someone would do in a state that does not protect its people in a shooting is different then what would happen in a state that does.

And here is the HEART of my disagreement.

NO. SYG, as I have already said in this thread, should NOT determine your tactics. It SHOULD make your legal aftermath less in the unfortunate event of a SD shooting. Even though it has apparently failed in that regard for Z.

Maybe there are those of you who would do almost anything (that didn't endanger yourself or a loved one) to avoid a SD shooting--let's just say to avoid the hassle afterward; convenience. And maybe there are some who are fine with having a SD shooting as soon as they are legally "entitled" to pull the trigger.

We all have to choose. But Z lives in a "gun-friendly" state, and look at what has happened to him.

If someone draws on you would you reach for the gun?

If he were close enough, and if I was convinced I had to, then I would not only reach for it, I would take it away. Safer than drawing my own gun. YMMV.

But what I would do (and your incorrect assumptions about what I would do) are irrelevant to what happened between M and Z that night.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by barstoolguru: Remember he [Zimmerman]had the right to be there, ...

So did Martin.

...correct me if I am wrong but Massachusetts is not the most friendly gun state out there...

That's irrelevant. Massachusetts came up in reference to certain aspect of the use of force laws: unlike Florida, Massachusetts allows relevant information about an attacker's background that had not been known to a defender to be admitted in court in a defense of justification.

There is no law that says you can't get out of your car and investigate...

I think we've established that--and the fact that it is usually very imprudent to do so.

If someone draws on you would you reach for the gun? Chances are no ; The common reaction would be ...

That's baseless speculation, but we'll respond to give you one more chance to understand this: if person draws a gun and points it at another person who has not committed a crime or provoked a confrontation, that person has every right to use force, including deadly force if necessary, to defend himself or herself against the person with the gun. That has been brought up at least a couple of times here.

Do not fall into the trap of identifying with one party or the other and believing that party to be the "good guy."

 

[Shoobee]

Loosedhorse -- If he were close enough, and if I was convinced I had to, then I would not only reach for it, I would take it away. Safer than drawing my own gun. YMMV.

Good point, LH, which is exactly what I have done the one time I was in that situation, and I got the gun easily away from her. From the cries for help in the "9-1-1 tapes" this is what the Martin kid was in the process of doing as he was calling for help. It did not work for him however. We won't know much more for sure until after all the evidence is presented by both sides in state court however.

Tactically speaking, you CAN be too close to effective deploy (draw and shoot) a gun.

That's why tactically speaking it is always best to keep your proper interval and not let anyone get too close to you. 15 or 20 feet (5 to 7 yards) is about the minimum interval.

When these two (Martin and Zimmerman) closed within that distance for whatever reason, they both violated that rule of engagement, and now it became a wrestling match. The strongest heaviest person is going to win a wresting match, in most cases, if they both know how to wrestle. Taking the gun away or wrestling for it always becomes an issue whenever that close.

One more reason to run like hell if someone is chasing you.

One more reason to stay in your car if you are performing solo volunteer neighborhood watch.

One more reason not to confront anyone when you are on neighborhood watch, just observe for any crime being committed, and quietly and discretely call it in.

 

[JRH6856]

To someone like me, saying that there's a 48% match is basically saying it's a coin-toss: might be Zimmerman, might not. Could go either way.

The comparson was made to Zimmerman's voice in his call to SPD. That was before he suffered a broken nose. The screams came after his nose was broken. One has to wonder just how much a broken nosed might affect a voice profile.

 

[JRH6856]

NO. SYG, as I have already said in this thread, should NOT determine your tactics. It SHOULD make your legal aftermath less in the unfortunate event of a SD shooting. Even though it has apparently failed in that regard for Z.

Actually, the SYG law was apprently protecting Z pretty well until the situation changed for reasons we can't discuss here.

 

[Loosedhorse]

SYG law was apprently protecting Z pretty well until...

Until it stopped protecting him. For whatever reason the protection vanished, it did vanish. So it may vanish for any of us, given the right set of circumstances--which may not involve any crime on our part.

That is one of the reasons that I think retreat remains the better tactic, even in a SYG state.

this is what the Martin kid was in the process of doing as he was calling for help

While there is evidence suggesting that M's hand may have been on the gun when it was fired, there is no evidence suggesting the voice was M's.

From the police report:

While the SFD was attending Zimmerman, I over heard him state: "I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me."

And the witness "John" from Hannity:

The guy on the bottom who I believe had a red sweater on was yelling to me help, help...

 

[Fred Fuller]

Anything that stops the slide of a fully loaded semiauto pistol (magazine loaded to capacity plus a round in the chamber) from reciprocating would leave a fired case in the chamber and a full magazine. That might be another's hand on the slide, or it might be the rear of the slide being in contact with something unyielding enough to keep the slide from cycling. Or it could be something else.

This is just one more detail we don't know, and speculating about it doesn't add to what we do know.

Which is why speculating is not helpful to us here.

 

[JRH6856]

That is one of the reasons that I think retreat remains the better tactic, even in a SYG state.

IMO, retreat is always the better tactic when available. A good offense is not always the best defense. Even if the law appears to some readers to allow it, it really doesn't.

 

[barstoolguru]

So did Martin.

why did he run?

That's irrelevant. Massachusetts came up in reference to certain aspect of the use of force laws

like in a court of law if it is brought up it is fare game

if person draws a gun and points it at another person who has not committed a crime or provoked a confrontation, that person has every right to use force, including deadly force if necessary, to defend himself or herself against the person with the gun

You are correct here BUT you are speculating that the gun was drawn before the fight started and have no proof of that

Federal prosecutors are not elected officials.

angela corey is an ELECTED and as such is a puppet looking to stay in office

Corey, 57, was elected as State Attorney in the 4th District in 2008 after handling more than 50 homicide trials. One defense attorney called her nice outside the courtroom, but inside the courtroom, "Attila the Hun."

http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...reputation-of-being-tough-determined-and-fair

and a new you tube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8M6ON2fH-c&feature=g-all-u&context=G28b1337FAAAAAAAABAA

 

[barstoolguru]

Anything that stops the slide of a fully loaded semiauto pistol (magazine loaded to capacity plus a round in the chamber) from reciprocating would leave a fired case in the chamber and a full magazine. That might be another's hand on the slide, or it might be the rear of the slide being in contact with something unyielding enough to keep the slide from cycling. Or it could be something else.

This is just one more detail we don't know, and speculating about it doesn't add to what we do know.

here is what massad ayoob says...
"One thing that can cause that is another man’s hand wrapped around the pistol, retarding its slide mechanism. This would indicate, as could certain gunshot residue patterns or cuts in certain places if found on Trayvon Martin’s hand(s), that a struggle for a gun was taking place when the fatal shot was fired. This would clearly change the shape of the case." and yes this is speculation but very GOOD speculation

http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/Mass...mmerman-and-trayvon-martin-what-we-dont-know/

 

[9mmepiphany]

SYG, as I have already said in this thread, should NOT determine your tactics. It SHOULD make your legal aftermath less in the unfortunate event of a SD shooting.

I think this is an important point.

Until this incident/thread, I did not realize how many people would actually base their tactics of Stand Your Ground or Castle Doctrine.

These laws aren't meant to give permission to act...they don't protect you against the consequences of foolhardy actions or poor decisions (regardless of their legality) . They are meant to acknowledge that the acts might be excusable under certain circumstances

 

[Carl N. Brown]

THR/SS/STT: always carry recording equipmemt when in public?

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.

Report Date: 2/27/2012 3:29 Reporter: S25894 Smith, Timothy Clearance: 0 Open Report Type: S
....
Zimmerman was placed in the rear of my police vehicle and was given first aid by the SFD. While the SFD was attending Zimmerman, I over heard him state: "I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me."
....
from "Twin Lakes Shooting Initial Report.pdf" from Partial Report Sanford PD (Agency report number 201250001136) 2/26/2012

Fox 35 Orlando, Fox Tampa Bay, "Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman", Updated: Friday, 23 Mar 2012
....
"The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911," he said.
Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.
The witness only wanted to be identified as "John," and didn't not want to be shown on camera.
His statements to police were instrumental, because police backed up Zimmerman's claims, saying those screams on the 911 call are those of Zimmerman.
"When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point," John said.
.....

 

[9mmepiphany]

why did he run?

Because he had a right to? We'll never know, because he can't answer that question

You are correct here BUT you are speculating that the gun was drawn before the fight started and have no proof of that

I believe this was an answer to your question of how most folks react to having a gun drawn on them.. At contact distance, the obvious response would not to to run, but to grapple over it

 

[rajb123]

Has the autopsy report for trayvon been released? I wonder if he had any drugs in his system ? Will this be included in court?
Thanks...

 

[Risky]

THR/SS/STT: always carry recording equipmemt when in public?

It's worth considering but you must be aware of your state's eavesdropping/wiretapping laws.

Kentucky has one party consent, which means I can record any conversation that I'm involved with. However, I cannot legally record a conversation between other individuals of which I am not present.