Re: George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin Case -- General Discussion #8

by Guest Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:53 am

Corey to continue on the case, I think her assignment was for a year, I don't remember, the request seems to be a formality since the case isn't concluded.

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Letter%20from%20State%20Attorney%20Angela%20Corey.pdf

http://flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Executive%20Order%20%2012-279.pdf

by Freckles Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:00 pm

art tart wrote:KimmyK -

in reference to your comment @ KimmyK Today at 12:09 am.

Respectfully, this article you are referencing is dating 3/21/12, an old article BEFORE much of the evidence was even released in the case, the article is nearly 10 months old.

Just as many thought this was a racially motivated case in March 2012 because the public believed the Handler's/Crump, the FBI said there is no evidence it is a racially motivated case, but many that haven't followed the case/evidence still think it is. The point being, many opinions were formed early in the case DESPITE all the evidence that has since been released.

The case is almost a year old, art tart.Which is almost nothing in the eyes of the courts. The article WAS pertinent at the time. GZ' handlers are still playing a racial card by reminding everyone THEY are all racist while the Zimm clan is NOT. lol! They do protest too much! And while the FBI has stated whatever, two things stand out:
--- GZ' social media page in which he states his anger over specific racial groups;
the "coon" comment as well as the "They always get away" to NEN
--- GZ stating he was not Hispanic or Latino BUT he was WHITE; anthropologist have
no ability to determine the race of Latino by examining the bones--- all Latino's have the SAME identical bone structure as whites. Latino is NOT a race but an ethnic grouping. Why was GZ so concerned he be correctly identified as NOT Latino? (And why was his mother so concerned with the ethnic inheritance of GZ' long term gf?)

by Guest Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:45 pm

Freckles shared:

The case is almost a year old, art tart. Which is almost nothing in the eyes of the courts. The article WAS pertinent at the time.

Freckles, that was the whole point, whether the article was pertinent at the time, what is important is what is pertinent and factual at this time, 10 months later. MORE evidence has come out and things written and stated in the early months, especially by Media, are different today.

The time element for the Court's is a good thing, so much new evidence has come out since the article was written, so much more is going to come out, I can't wait for Crump and DeeDee's depositions, they will make for an interesting read, the SYG Hearing is 3 months away, a lot more information is going to come out then.

MOM/West are confident in their Self Defense case, although Hornsby and other Attorney's in Fla. have predicted Judge N is going to kick it to the jury, too hot a political topic, MOM/West will, imo, and the opinion of many others, appeal the decision to a higher court. MOM/West imo, probably anticipate the case being kicked to the Jury by Judge N as is her reputation, but the good news is, they can prepare for an appeal at the same time they are preparing for the SYG hearing.

by Alessandra_Deux Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:05 pm

The evidence that has come out is the same evidence that was used against Zimmerman to charge him with second degree murder.

by KimmyK Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:32 pm

Freckles wrote:
art tart wrote:KimmyK -

in reference to your comment @ KimmyK Today at 12:09 am.

Respectfully, this article you are referencing is dating 3/21/12, an old article BEFORE much of the evidence was even released in the case, the article is nearly 10 months old.

Just as many thought this was a racially motivated case in March 2012 because the public believed the Handler's/Crump, the FBI said there is no evidence it is a racially motivated case, but many that haven't followed the case/evidence still think it is. The point being, many opinions were formed early in the case DESPITE all the evidence that has since been released.

The case is almost a year old, art tart.Which is almost nothing in the eyes of the courts. The article WAS pertinent at the time. GZ' handlers are still playing a racial card by reminding everyone THEY are all racist while the Zimm clan is NOT. lol! They do protest too much! And while the FBI has stated whatever, two things stand out:
--- GZ' social media page in which he states his anger over specific racial groups;
the "coon" comment as well as the "They always get away" to NEN
--- GZ stating he was not Hispanic or Latino BUT he was WHITE; anthropologist have
no ability to determine the race of Latino by examining the bones--- all Latino's have the SAME identical bone structure as whites. Latino is NOT a race but an ethnic grouping. Why was GZ so concerned he be correctly identified as NOT Latino? (And why was his mother so concerned with the ethnic inheritance of GZ' long term gf?)

It is quite evident GZ's side is using the race card in this case...
I haven't seen/heard much from the Martin side, but boy you can hear Zimm clan whine all day!

Go take a look at Jr's (the FAMILY'S) Twitter account...all he does is spew garbage all day!!! Cell

See below...

Robert Zimmerman Jr
@rzimmermanjr
•SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS• OFFICIAL Twitter feed from George Zimmerman's older brother Robert -
Acct is shared with Zimmerman Family. RT/Reply is not an endorsement.
robertjzjrmedia@gmail.com · tinyurl.com/9wjhxas

Robert Zimmerman Jr ‏@rzimmermanjr
I intend 2remind some career politicians: U were not elected "2 Power", U were elected "2 SERVE"..2Serve the PEOPLE. Race-Baiting serves NO1

IMO, Maybe the Zimm clan are using the theory...
IF you yell something LOUD enough and LONG enough people MAY start to believe it??
Anyhow, just popped in to respond, be back later...

by KZ Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:32 pm

Colsnipe, good post on page 18, but with a few factual errors about the specific wording of the Florida law.

Thanks, Art Tart, for bumping my post.

In addition to the points I outlined in my previous post about the first “meeting” not being any kind of legally defined “confrontation”, the other issue looming that I have seen no one discuss is the wording of the charging documents where Angela Corey states GZ “illegally profiled” TM. From the moment I first read that, I have been perplexed as to why the SA would word it that way.
You see, private citizens cannot “profile” other individuals.

While the term “profiling” has entered the colloquial language, the specific legal term “profiling” refers to a licensed/ sworn peace officer making determinations about another person based on race, and singling them out for increased scrutiny/ charges. It is a police abuse. Private citizens cannot profile, because it is not an unequal power relationship.

Private citizens make DECISIONS AND DETERMINATIONS about the intent of our fellow citizens as we encounter them when outside of our homes (SYG law in FL discussed residence vs non-residence-- linked below). I might make a determination that a situation is unsafe, and could deteriorate to violence, and choose to remove myself before the situation escalates. That isn't profiling. I might choose to call police if I witness a situation escalating that I feel needs police intervention for the safety of everyone involved and bystanders. That is not "profiling" either. NEITHER of those 2 examples are legally (or illegally) “profiling” the participants.

One of the biggest uphill battles (imo) that the prosecution has, is to define and establish GZ’s behavior as it applies to their own charge of “illegally profiling” TM’s behavior and race. GZ is not a sworn peace officer. He did not identify himself as Neighborhood Watch to TM, both evidenced by the NEN call, bystanders, Dee Dee’s comments, and his own comments. GZ did not identify himself in a “power” position to TM. He may have appeared menacing, but that still isn't the power position necessary to establish profiling. There is no evidence that he “pulled rank” and told TM to stop, or accosted TM in any way beyond LOOKING at him, and making a decision to make phone call. There is no way for TM to know WHO GZ was speaking to on the cell phone. GZ didn’t even speak to him—which if GZ HAD spoken to TM, could be used to establish an altercation, and support 2nd degree murder charges, imo. He LOOKED at him and made a phone call to police. That isn’t enough to meet “malice” definite of second degree murder, imo.

Following him in the manner in which he did, while on the phone with police, is not malice. The WAY he followed TM, imo, does not meet a definition of malice. He wasn’t pursuing with a gun drawn, shooting, shouting at him, throwing things at him, etc. GZ’s actions do not meet the definition of “illegally profiling” that the state needs to establish in order to make GZ’s INITIAL actions (the first meeting) into an assault scenario, imo.

So the state will have to trot out the Neighborhood Watch comments in the minutes of the HOA, and national NW criteria, etc, in an attempt to persuade the judge (at the SYG hearing) or jury trial) that GZ was in a role where he had OFFICIAL “unequal power”, similar to a police officer, AND that the victim had knowledge that GZ was in this power position. The problem with that is that GZ was NOT a police officer. NW volunteers, even self appointed captains, are private citizens. A private citizen cannot “profile” another person. A colloquial interpretation of “profile” will not meet the legal standard in court, imo. GZ never identified himself as NW—and at this point, while that has been roundly criticized as contributing to the escalation of the situation, I think that it is currently in GZ’s favor that he did NOT speak to TM. Otherwise, I’d be voting for manslaughter again, and seriously pondering 2nd degree malice murder. There was no encounter between them the first time except that they LOOKED at each other warily. That meets the criteria for nothing criminal for each of them, imo.

And let’s talk for a second about “illegally profiling” in the charging documents. What in the heck is “illegally profiling”, when the act of profiling itself by a Leo has been deemed illegal? I simply do not understand why the charging documents were worded in this manner, with all of the learned minds who had to review them before they were filed. This wasn’t a typo—it was a carefully chosen phrase that would have to be established as PRIMARY importance to the charges filed by Ms. Corey. Nobody at that level makes mistakes like that. (Although I do characterize many of Ms. Corey’s controversial actions in this case and others to be borne of hubris.)

So, unless the SA can somehow persuade a judge/ jury that what GZ did in the initial encounter was “illegal profiling” (according to a legal definition, not a colloquial one), they will have to begin again with the second encounter to show how they believe that the act of looking at, and following, meets the criteria for “assault” of TM, when there was a great deal of space between them, and GZ clearly says he lost sight of him. The second meeting was the first assault, imo, according to the wording of the law. And BDLR has stated they have no way of proving who threw the first punch. So the state can’t PROVE who threw the first punch—so let’s look at what they CAN establish.

1.Neither of them were engaging in illegal behavior UNTIL the first punch was thrown.
2.They were both “allowed” to be where they were in the public areas of the complex
3.Dee Dee’s testimony supports GZ’s NEN that TM got far away from GZ before the beating encounter
4.GZ was LEGALLY carrying his sidearm, and there is no evidence it was not concealed until he shot TM on top of him beating him
5.TM was witnessed by uninvolved bystanders astride GZ beating him
6.TM had no wounds of defense, and had one wound consistent with offensive behavior
7.GZ had clearly documented wounds to the face and back of the head
8.Witnesses observed the wounds occurring at the hands of TM

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Nothing in the FL statute (other states may be differently worded) says that the force met must be equal or lesser force, and nothing says the person claiming SYG self defense must retreat (although GZ had no opportunity to retreat with TM on top of him.) The FL statute clearly says “including deadly force”. The preponderance of the witness statements and pictorial evidence, and medical records, establishes GZ WAS having his head beat at the time of the gunshot. Even if we toss out the 911 call with someone calling for help-- bystanders report GZ asking for police to be called. All of that together says to me that TM circled back once he put distance between them (both Dee Dee and GZ's NEN calls confirm this), to ask GZ why he was following him (Dee Dee's words). And then the witnessed altercation with TM on top. That is preemptive assault, imo. Very sad, that TM didn't just stay away from him, but CHOSE to attack, imo. I have no doubts but that TM would be alive if he had stayed away from GZ and chose not to attack him physically.

I don’t know what will happen in this case. I think both of them were acting in very dangerously impulsive ways, and I believe TM would be alive if he had not chosen to pre-emptively attack GZ. But with the legal minds evenly divided, and the public tainted and swayed by fabricated racial motives, and maliciously manipulated reports of the NEN call, it could go either way. But if I were a jury member, I could not vote guilty for second degree murder. Voir dire, not evidence or the law, will determine how this case turns out, imo. I agree with many others that Judge Nelson isn’t the type to rule favorably for GZ in this case, given the level of publicity and politics. She will kick it to a jury.

by Guest Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:41 pm

Alessandra_Deux wrote:The evidence that has come out is the same evidence that was used against Zimmerman to charge him with second degree murder.

Alessandra - I respectfully disagree, it's questionable if the State can prove their case imo, only time will tell, Corey was brought in to quash racial unrest, she did just that, numerous analyst have stated so. Just as Hornsby said, since the evidence has come out, the racial element is not what was alleged, the National Media is less interested in the story. I have noticed the story isn't covered as much in the media except the Orlando, Miami area, even Sharpton/J Jackson aren't making comments on the case, maybe they have too read some of the evidence, or more importantly, read the FBI report that said this wasn't a racially motivated case. I believe they will be back to ratchet up the black community unfortuately, especially if there is any coverage by Media in which they can get coverage promoting themselves imo. We'll see on that issue as well too.

Many that convicted GZ from the onset still convict him today as it is their right, many other's that followed the evidence question this ever was a 2nd degree murder case including Alan Derchowitz and other legal analyst, Corey can charge anything she wants, the problem is, she has to prove it and has to have viable, credible witnesses. Many of us just want a fair trial for GZ, many do not, that remains the same since the beginning of the case.

by Freckles Sat Jan 12, 2013 2:36 pm

KZ-
Interesting info you bring re "illegally profiling".
Perhaps, what is meant by the words used was to state,"GZ profiled and was not in a lawful/legal position of authority TO profile in the manner he did," ie, coming to a conclusion TM was "suspicious" "on drugs or something" "isn't acting right" etc. While GZ might choose to make those observations for himself, he had no legal authority in any capacity to act upon those observations which is why he was told to NOT follow TM?

" He LOOKED at him and made a phone call to police. That isn’t enough to meet “malice” definite of second degree murder, imo. "
Interesting. If it is not enough to meet malice, which I agree with, THEN IF TM looked at GZ, then could that not meet the same definition of "malice" ? Where is the intimidation applied within the law, if there is any in definition?

" 1.Neither of them were engaging in illegal behavior UNTIL the first punch was thrown."
Unless GZ was following TM in an attempt to provoke an altercation. Then it might be regarded as criminal behavior due to the outcome.

We do not know how GZ rec the injuries to his head, when he rec the injuries of even how they were inflicted.
We have his word alone. He states he was hit at least 24 times on the sidewalk. That is ridiculous. The marks on the head are not those of a head hitting a sidewalk 24 times or even once; the blood flow pattern is illogical for the statements he gave re the receipt of said injuries.

by Freckles Sat Jan 12, 2013 2:42 pm

art tart-
"
Freckles, that was the whole point, whether the article was pertinent at the time, what is important is what is pertinent and factual at this time, 10 months later. MORE evidence has come out and things written and stated in the early months, especially by Media, are different today. "
BBM: Huh? You have incomplete or contradictory statements here.

Kimmy was pointing out something which WAS relevant at the time it was stated. That is a foundation, IMO. Yes, additional info has been shared which may or may not support the foundation. Nothing wrong with looking back to see where we have come from to form foundations for later ideas and concepts.

by Alessandra_Deux Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:10 pm

art tart wrote:
Alessandra_Deux wrote:The evidence that has come out is the same evidence that was used against Zimmerman to charge him with second degree murder.

Alessandra - I respectfully disagree, it's questionable if the State can prove their case imo, only time will tell, Corey was brought in to quash racial unrest, she did just that, numerous analyst have stated so. Just as Hornsby said, since the evidence has come out, the racial element is not what was alleged, the National Media is less interested in the story. I have noticed the story isn't covered as much in the media except the Orlando, Miami area, even Sharpton/J Jackson aren't making comments on the case, maybe they have too read some of the evidence, or more importantly, read the FBI report that said this wasn't a racially motivated case. I believe they will be back to ratchet up the black community unfortuately, especially if there is any coverage by Media in which they can get coverage promoting themselves imo. We'll see on that issue as well too.

Many that convicted GZ from the onset still convict him today as it is their right, many other's that followed the evidence question this ever was a 2nd degree murder case including Alan Derchowitz and other legal analyst, Corey can charge anything she wants, the problem is, she has to prove it and has to have viable, credible witnesses. Many of us just want a fair trial for GZ, many do not, that remains the same since the beginning of the case.

"Corey was brought in to quash racial unrest", and the FBI got involved in the investigation to defuse the tensions between the Sanford Police Department and the (Sanford) African American community.

Trayvon's parents wanted the FBI to investigate the death of their son, but let's don't forget that the FBI is a government agency, and that the Sanford Police Department was under a fire storm for the handling of the investigation into the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

Let's don't forget either that in the early stages of this case, Frank Taaffe become a permanent fixture on HLN, and that his mantra was the eight burglaries in the gated community that were perpetrated by young black males (like Trayvon Martin).

Zimmerman called Taaffe to thank him for his "media quest" to defend him and for his steadfast support.

“Hey Mr. Taaffe,” the message began, “This is George............Um, secondly, I wanted to thank you for doing everything you’ve been doing. Um, I know you don’t have to, and I appreciate it, and you’re truly setting an example for me for the future of, uh, doing the right thing even when it’s tough, and, uh, I appreciate it. I’ll talk to you soon. Thanks.”

"Frank Taaffe pointed out the circumstances that he believes led his 28-year-old neighbor to react the way he did on the night of Feb. 26: Eight burglaries within 15 months, most done by young black males, he said.

"The stage was already set. It was a perfect storm,” Taaffe said."

Natale Jackson told Frank Taaffe that he was doing a disservice to Zimmerman by constantly fanning the flames of racial controversy on National Television.

Another gem by Taaffe:

“I think he had fed-up issues. He was mad as hell and wasn’t going to take it anymore.”

BTW, I know that in a criminal case, the prosecution has the burden of proof.

by KimmyK Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:06 pm

Alessandra_Deux wrote:
art tart wrote:

Alessandra - I respectfully disagree, it's questionable if the State can prove their case imo, only time will tell, Corey was brought in to quash racial unrest, she did just that, numerous analyst have stated so. Just as Hornsby said, since the evidence has come out, the racial element is not what was alleged, the National Media is less interested in the story. I have noticed the story isn't covered as much in the media except the Orlando, Miami area, even Sharpton/J Jackson aren't making comments on the case, maybe they have too read some of the evidence, or more importantly, read the FBI report that said this wasn't a racially motivated case. I believe they will be back to ratchet up the black community unfortuately, especially if there is any coverage by Media in which they can get coverage promoting themselves imo. We'll see on that issue as well too.

Many that convicted GZ from the onset still convict him today as it is their right, many other's that followed the evidence question this ever was a 2nd degree murder case including Alan Derchowitz and other legal analyst, Corey can charge anything she wants, the problem is, she has to prove it and has to have viable, credible witnesses. Many of us just want a fair trial for GZ, many do not, that remains the same since the beginning of the case.

"Corey was brought in to quash racial unrest", and the FBI got involved in the investigation to defuse the tensions between the Sanford Police Department and the (Sanford) African American community.

Trayvon's parents wanted the FBI to investigate the death of their son, but let's don't forget that the FBI is a government agency, and that the Sanford Police Department was under a fire storm for the handling of the investigation into the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

Let's don't forget either that in the early stages of his case, Frank Taaffe become a permanent fixture on HLN, and that his mantra was the eight burglaries in the gated community that were perpetrated by young black males (like Trayvon Martin).

Zimmerman called Taaffe to thank him for his "media quest" to defend him and for his steadfast support.

“Hey Mr. Taaffe,” the message began, “This is George............Um, secondly, I wanted to thank you for doing everything you’ve been doing. Um, I know you don’t have to, and I appreciate it, and you’re truly setting an example for me for the future of, uh, doing the right thing even when it’s tough, and, uh, I appreciate it. I’ll talk to you soon. Thanks.”

"Frank Taaffe pointed out the circumstances that he believes led his 28-year-old neighbor to react the way he did on the night of Feb. 26: Eight burglaries within 15 months, most done by young black males, he said.

"The stage was already set. It was a perfect storm,” Taaffe said."

Natale Jackson told Frank Taaffe that he was doing a disservice to Zimmerman by constantly fanning the flames of racial controversy on National Television.

Another gem by Taaffe:

“I think he had fed-up issues. He was mad as hell and wasn’t going to take it anymore.”

BTW, I know that in a criminal case, the prosecution has the burden of proof.

BBM-
IMO, Seems Natalie Jackson was quite generous(?)(looking for a good word here), (helpful to GZ?),
to basically tell Taaffe to "shut up" that he was doing a disservice to GZ...
Especially since so many seem to blame NJ and other Martin family representatives that THEY were/are the ones fanning the flames... Shocked

JMO

by KimmyK Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:48 pm

colsnipe wrote:As far as I know based on the information release so far there is a major discrepancy that has not been addressed so far.

According to GZ, he spotted TM in front of Franks house. It was in front of the the club house that the 911 call was made. According to Frank, people cut across his proprety to avoid “coding in”.

According to DD, she heard TM say that he had just coded in.
If he had coded in, and was according to both GZ and DD he was near the club house, how could he have been in front of franks house. It is out of the way.

According to TMs Dad’s Girlfriend Son…tm had one been out of the complex once before to go to the local store. It is quite likely he did not know about franks property.

Am I missing something here?

As for coding in, according to numerous videos posted to youtube, it does not appear that you have to code in to access each property. Only a standard lockset with a key; not a code.

Colsnipe,
I think I was wrong that the only code was a 'walk thru' gate, if you watch the video, (sorry, its OLD),
but you can see it appears the drive thru traffic is probably able to 'code in' as well.
I hope this works! It will not allow me to 'preview' but I hopefully the video will post!

by Freckles Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:04 am

It has been out for a few days, apparently, and no one is discussing the AIS lawsuit brought against MOM, GZ/SZ for failure to pay for services received?Seems MOM was stringing along the security company for sometime. He approved the services and the fees and kept stating "the check is in the mail" when in fact, in the end, he is stating GZ has to approve the payment! And, of course, GZ is broke!

Where I come from, IF you can't afford the services, you don't subscribe to them. Perhaps, GZ should have just cooled his heels in custody. Save a bundle of money, court time, etc.. How has he benefited by being out?

Exhibit L is a real embarrassment to MOM. Appears he agreed to specific services for security for his client and failed to get it in writing! Laughing

GZ is now taking the lawyer to the wash!

by KimmyK Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:30 am

colsnipe wrote:Kimmy K, you said it correct. In every state that has a SYG law, they all state the user of SYG cannot perpetuate the situation. Simply said, if GZ was told not to follow TM and he did with a firearm, then SYG does not apply. IF GZ had the firearm holstered and TM did double back like Art believes, than only when the situation escalates to life threatening acts does GZ have a legal right to use SYG.
Now, if GZ was truly afraid for his life, why did he get out of his vehicle to pursue?
why did GZ if afraid, and truly believed that TM had a gun-like he stated in the NEN call, leave the safety of his vehicle and end the call with NEN?
Would be easier to dispatch EMS/PD/SD/LEO if the dispatch heard a fight or had reason to believe that GZ's life was in danger?

According to my conversations with LEOs in my area, the proper use & deployment of SYG is to meet force with force. (Sorry can't provide link) In other words,
pursue-lose SYG
Fist-Fist
Knife-Knife
Fist-Gun if other lives are in DIRECT danger
Knife-Gun if other lives are in DIRECT danger
Gun-Gun
Stay-SYG applies
Retreat with in reason(eg:large crowd in a mall. retreat impossible; in a vehicle; with family)-SYG applies.

but the KEY is force must be met with equal or lesser force if SYG is to apply.

Now, i know i stated fist-gun if other lives are in DIRECT danger; if your life is in danger you must show that it was in direct danger, typically by showing defensive injuries directly attributed to the perp. merely having injuries usually does not exempt you from persecution of the law.

Lets break this out for clarity.
If a person is at an 7/11 and the perp walks in and shakes his fist at the clerk, and shouting i will kill you, their life is not in danger. It must escalate to action

If a person is at an 7/11 and the perp walks in and proceeds to start beating the clerk stating i will kill you, than the force requirement has been met.

If a person is at an 7/11 and the perp walks in and just waves a knife at the clerk, and stating i will kill you, their life is in danger, but the force requirement has not been met.

If a person is at an 7/11 and the perp walks in, jumps the counter, starts stabbing the clerk, stating i will kill you... obviously force requirement has been met.

If a person is at an 7/11 and the perp walks in; waves a gun or points it at a clerk, customer...than force has been met.

But keep in mind, that if you are in the store with a CCW, and you see a perp walkin with a knife, at a distance of about 15 feet, he can 9 times out of 10, close the distance @ a run with the knife and stab you at least once prior to you getting your gun out of its holster.
__________________________
Now before you start wondering about the SYG; you have to look at it through the eyes of a LEO/Judge/DA/Jury.
Obvious SYG/Self-defense, can still be brought under question regarding how much force was required to defuse the situation.

Sorry for the long post, Kimmy K, but it needed explaining and the explanation of force was provided by multiple LEOs i have known.

Thank you, Colsnipe! I brought up SYG (which yes, my link is OLD) -BUT-
If the defense theory is Trayvon chased GZ from BG's to the T to give GZ a 'beat down'
(Per DD's statement, they seem to think that TM went back from BG's)
Then why wouldn't SYG apply if this were the case?

Or, you don't get out of your vehicle with a loaded gun looking for 'suspicious' people...

I didn't hear TM went back on DD's interview, I'm thinking GZ probably chased Trayvon back up to the T,
IMO...

by Alessandra_Deux Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:33 am

KimmyK wrote:
Alessandra_Deux wrote:

"Corey was brought in to quash racial unrest", and the FBI got involved in the investigation to defuse the tensions between the Sanford Police Department and the (Sanford) African American community.

Trayvon's parents wanted the FBI to investigate the death of their son, but let's don't forget that the FBI is a government agency, and that the Sanford Police Department was under a fire storm for the handling of the investigation into the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

Let's don't forget either that in the early stages of his case, Frank Taaffe become a permanent fixture on HLN, and that his mantra was the eight burglaries in the gated community that were perpetrated by young black males (like Trayvon Martin).

Zimmerman called Taaffe to thank him for his "media quest" to defend him and for his steadfast support.

“Hey Mr. Taaffe,” the message began, “This is George............Um, secondly, I wanted to thank you for doing everything you’ve been doing. Um, I know you don’t have to, and I appreciate it, and you’re truly setting an example for me for the future of, uh, doing the right thing even when it’s tough, and, uh, I appreciate it. I’ll talk to you soon. Thanks.”

"Frank Taaffe pointed out the circumstances that he believes led his 28-year-old neighbor to react the way he did on the night of Feb. 26: Eight burglaries within 15 months, most done by young black males, he said.

"The stage was already set. It was a perfect storm,” Taaffe said."

Natale Jackson told Frank Taaffe that he was doing a disservice to Zimmerman by constantly fanning the flames of racial controversy on National Television.

Another gem by Taaffe:

“I think he had fed-up issues. He was mad as hell and wasn’t going to take it anymore.”

BTW, I know that in a criminal case, the prosecution has the burden of proof.

BBM-
IMO, Seems Natalie Jackson was quite generous(?)(looking for a good word here), (helpful to GZ?),
to basically tell Taaffe to "shut up" that he was doing a disservice to GZ...
Especially since so many seem to blame NJ and other Martin family representatives that THEY were/are the ones fanning the flames... JMO

The blame game is one of the most typical defenses in criminal cases.

They blame the victim, the victim's family, the family's lawyers, and everyone who supports their cause. It is a diversion from the forensic evidence and the contradictory statements that Zimmerman made during his multiple interviews. Everyone should ignore the fact that Zimmerman started the fiasco that led to him being criminally charged.

You know the motto, "don't look over here.......look over there"-------->

by KimmyK Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:34 am

Freckles wrote:It has been out for a few days, apparently, and no one is discussing the AIS lawsuit brought against MOM, GZ/SZ for failure to pay for services received?Seems MOM was stringing along the security company for sometime. He approved the services and the fees and kept stating "the check is in the mail" when in fact, in the end, he is stating GZ has to approve the payment! And, of course, GZ is broke!

Where I come from, IF you can't afford the services, you don't subscribe to them. Perhaps, GZ should have just cooled his heels in custody. Save a bundle of money, court time, etc.. How has he benefited by being out?

Exhibit L is a real embarrassment to MOM. Appears he agreed to specific services for security for his client and failed to get it in writing! GZ is now taking the lawyer to the wash!

And O'Liar is throwing his client UNDER the bus!!! Laughing

(Saying, uh, btw, can you take my name OFF that lawsuit??)
ETA-So much for attorney/client privilege! (which was the reason O'Liar hired AIS in the beginning)

by Alessandra_Deux Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:51 am

Freckles wrote:It has been out for a few days, apparently, and no one is discussing the AIS lawsuit brought against MOM, GZ/SZ for failure to pay for services received?Seems MOM was stringing along the security company for sometime. He approved the services and the fees and kept stating "the check is in the mail" when in fact, in the end, he is stating GZ has to approve the payment! And, of course, GZ is broke!

Where I come from, IF you can't afford the services, you don't subscribe to them. Perhaps, GZ should have just cooled his heels in custody. Save a bundle of money, court time, etc.. How has he benefited by being out?

Exhibit L is a real embarrassment to MOM. Appears he agreed to specific services for security for his client and failed to get it in writing! GZ is now taking the lawyer to the wash!

O'Mara has been conspicuously quiet about the AIS lawsuit.

by KimmyK Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:21 am

Alessandra_Deux wrote:
Freckles wrote:It has been out for a few days, apparently, and no one is discussing the AIS lawsuit brought against MOM, GZ/SZ for failure to pay for services received?Seems MOM was stringing along the security company for sometime. He approved the services and the fees and kept stating "the check is in the mail" when in fact, in the end, he is stating GZ has to approve the payment! And, of course, GZ is broke!

Where I come from, IF you can't afford the services, you don't subscribe to them. Perhaps, GZ should have just cooled his heels in custody. Save a bundle of money, court time, etc.. How has he benefited by being out?

Exhibit L is a real embarrassment to MOM. Appears he agreed to specific services for security for his client and failed to get it in writing! GZ is now taking the lawyer to the wash!

O'Mara has been conspicuously quiet about the AIS lawsuit.

Probably brainstorming on how to get out of owing the $$$...
Thinking about how not to stiff a business associate without paying?
If it was just GZ & SZ they could claim bankruptcy, but how does he get out of it without paying up?
I wonder what he's thinking about taking GZ's case these days? Crying or Very sad

or

or

by KZ Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:34 am

My comments/ response in blue.

Freckles wrote:KZ-
Interesting info you bring re "illegally profiling".
Perhaps, what is meant by the words used was to state,"GZ profiled and was not in a lawful/legal position of authority TO profile in the manner he did," ie, coming to a conclusion TM was "suspicious" "on drugs or something" "isn't acting right" etc. While GZ might choose to make those observations for himself, he had no legal authority in any capacity to act upon those observations which is why he was told to NOT follow TM?

Exactly. The dispatcher advised that he NOT follow TM. GZ indeed had "no legal authority in any capacity to act upon those observations" EXCEPT to remove himself. He called police to come and check out the situation. He was on the line with NEN dispatcher a VERY long time.

" He LOOKED at him and made a phone call to police. That isn’t enough to meet “malice” definite of second degree murder, imo. "

Interesting. If it is not enough to meet malice, which I agree with, THEN IF TM looked at GZ, then could that not meet the same definition of "malice" ? Where is the intimidation applied within the law, if there is any in definition?

IDK what you are getting at here. The law proscribes behavior. Speculation about intent (GZ's) while following is purely hypothetical in a confrontation hypothetically initiated by GZ that never existed. There is no evidence GZ assaulted, accosted, or harmed TM in any way. However, there IS evidence that TM achieved safe separation from GZ, but then CHOSE to return to confront/ assault him.

" 1.Neither of them were engaging in illegal behavior UNTIL the first punch was thrown."

Unless GZ was following TM in an attempt to provoke an altercation. Then it might be regarded as criminal behavior due to the outcome.

BBM. That is a LOT of hypotheticals. Hypothetical pursuit in an attempt to hypothetically provoke a hypothetical confrontation. The law deals in evidence. Hypothetical is not enough to legally justify preemptive assault by TM.

We do not know how GZ rec the injuries to his head, when he rec the injuries of even how they were inflicted.

Yes, we do. We have a ton of evidence here. I completely disagree with this statement.

We have his word alone.

No, I disagree. We have Dee Dee, and witnesses from the apt complex, and police officers, and photographs by police and others, and medical records.

He states he was hit at least 24 times on the sidewalk. That is ridiculous. The marks on the head are not those of a head hitting a sidewalk 24 times or even once; the blood flow pattern is illogical for the statements he gave re the receipt of said injuries.

Nothing in Florida law says that the injuries of the person claiming self defense must be unquestionably life threatening. The individual being injured has to reasonably believe he/ she was in danger of great bodily harm. There is no duty to retreat. There is evidence of TM being astride GZ hitting him and hitting his head into the ground/ pavement. He was not required by law to lose consciousness to defend himself. There are many explanations for the "blood flow pattern" in the pics.

by Freckles Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:28 pm

KZ wrote:My comments/ response in blue.

Freckles wrote:KZ-
Interesting info you bring re "illegally profiling".
Perhaps, what is meant by the words used was to state,"GZ profiled and was not in a lawful/legal position of authority TO profile in the manner he did," ie, coming to a conclusion TM was "suspicious" "on drugs or something" "isn't acting right" etc. While GZ might choose to make those observations for himself, he had no legal authority in any capacity to act upon those observations which is why he was told to NOT follow TM?

Exactly. The dispatcher advised that he NOT follow TM. GZ indeed had "no legal authority in any capacity to act upon those observations" EXCEPT to remove himself. He called police to come and check out the situation. He was on the line with NEN dispatcher a VERY long time.
Please explain when and why GZ elected to not follow the directions provided by NEN.If I contact an authority re a situation I would expect to follow the directions provided.

" He LOOKED at him and made a phone call to police. That isn’t enough to meet “malice” definite of second degree murder, imo. "

Interesting. If it is not enough to meet malice, which I agree with, THEN IF TM looked at GZ, then could that not meet the same definition of "malice" ? Where is the intimidation applied within the law, if there is any in definition?

IDK what you are getting at here.
Simple. There was no malice demonstrated by TM IF we follow the definition of malice.As such, GZ had no authority to shoot TM. IF you want to maintain TM DID demonstrate an aggressive action, then the force TM demonstrated COULD be equaled by said force from GZ; ie, TM used his fists THEN GZ may use his fists in self defense (despite no evidence on TM or GZ of TM ever touching GZ' head) . Colsnipe had an excellent post on this.

The law proscribes behavior. Speculation about intent (GZ's) while following is purely hypothetical in a confrontation hypothetically initiated by GZ that never existed. Are you stating GZ just happened to be behind TM on the sidewalk? GZ acknowledged he WAS following TM. GZ was told to not follow TM. NEN gave those instructions. Why would GZ chose to ignore the very authority he has called upon unless he had his own agenda?

There is no evidence GZ assaulted, accosted, or harmed TM in any way. However, there IS evidence that TM achieved safe separation from GZ, but then CHOSE to return to confront/ assault him.
We have no evidence TM left the assault area and then returned. In fact, time would indicate other.

" 1.Neither of them were engaging in illegal behavior UNTIL the first punch was thrown."

Unless GZ was following TM in an attempt to provoke an altercation. Then it might be regarded as criminal behavior due to the outcome.

BBM. That is a LOT of hypotheticals. Hypothetical pursuit in an attempt to hypothetically provoke a hypothetical confrontation. The law deals in evidence. Hypothetical is not enough to legally justify preemptive assault by TM.Why did GZ elect to follow TM if not for a purpose of his own? It was NOT to provide an address for addresses ARE posted on the buildings; he was instructed to NOT follow; he failed to provide an address; he disconnected from NEN and did not call them back to give them any address info.

We do not know how GZ rec the injuries to his head, when he rec the injuries of even how they were inflicted.

Yes, we do. We have a ton of evidence here. I completely disagree with this statement.
How would you, using your medical knowledge, explain the injury to the head which appears to have been caused by an implement? Please explain the lack of DNA exchange.

We have his word alone.

No, I disagree. We have Dee Dee, and witnesses from the apt complex, and police officers, and photographs by police and others, and medical records.
There is conflict as well as potential misrepresentations of statements by other witnesses.

He states he was hit at least 24 times on the sidewalk. That is ridiculous. The marks on the head are not those of a head hitting a sidewalk 24 times or even once; the blood flow pattern is illogical for the statements he gave re the receipt of said injuries.

Nothing in Florida law says that the injuries of the person claiming self defense must be unquestionably life threatening. Not disputing this. I do question the "24 or more times".

The individual being injured has to reasonably believe he/ she was in danger of great bodily harm. There is no duty to retreat.Not disputing this although common sense would state, since GZ felt the urgency to call NEN, he WOULD have retreated as he really had NO purpose in being the area. Except to follow TM.What was his purpose?

There is evidence of TM being astride GZ hitting him and hitting his head into the ground/ pavement. I have not seen convincing evidence.
He was not required by law to lose consciousness to defend himself.Not disputing.
There are many explanations for the "blood flow pattern" in the pics.Such as? IMO, this defies logic.

My response to KZ.

by Alessandra_Deux Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:58 pm

Witness # 8

........."he is by his father's house"

by
noun.
1. near to or next to

adverb

near; in close vicinity; at hand

in the vicinity of, in close proximity

----------------

In the vecinity of -

almost
adverb

Synonyms:

near, not far from, relatively close, just about, close to, bordering on........

by justanopinion Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:17 am

Nagging question...

As evidenced by the NEN call... George states several things..something is wrong with him; might be on drugs; and implies that TM was reaching into his pocket for a gun.. (most likely since TM had earbuds; it was for his cellie to answer it as DD said they kept losing the connection) yes I am aware that this is an assumption!!

but... If you thought someone was carrying a gun... and you were following them in the dark... into an unlit area... would your gun be holstered or would you have it out..

I wonder if GZ hung up from NEN because he realized that he was unable to see and needed the second hand to hold the flashlight.. (some reports say that the flashlight at the "T" was on and GZ says it wasn't working)

JMO and question!

by KimmyK Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:30 am

justanopinion wrote:Nagging question...

As evidenced by the NEN call... George states several things..something is wrong with him; might be on drugs; and implies that TM was reaching into his pocket for a gun.. (most likely since TM had earbuds; it was for his cellie to answer it as DD said they kept losing the connection) yes I am aware that this is an assumption!!

but... If you thought someone was carrying a gun... and you were following them in the dark... into an unlit area... would your gun be holstered or would you have it out..

I wonder if GZ hung up from NEN because he realized that he was unable to see and needed the second hand to hold the flashlight.. (some reports say that the flashlight at the "T" was on and GZ says it wasn't working)

JMO and question!

Good question, IMO. The only thing is, I think you might be getting your flashlights mixed up?

IIRC, the flashlight at the 'T' was the smaller key-chain one on his keys, and the larger non-working one was closer to Trayvon's body. IIRC, there is possibly one more, mentioned in Santiago's statement across the side walk from the keys (and the leaf), it looks like it can be seen in one of the crime scene pictures on the ground by the trash can. That flashlight is not mentioned in any other reports, so I'm not sure if it really is another flashlight or not.

Weird thing, IIRC, GZ doesn't say much about the flashlight(s) in any of his statements...
Then I think, supposidly he wasn't really 'looking' Trayvon, he was 'looking' for an address, right?

ETA-Santiago, page 16/183 doc dump...
"I observed a key chain lying in the grass near the T portion of the walkway, a black flashlight lying on the grass just east of the keychain."

by justanopinion Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:39 pm

KimmyK wrote:
justanopinion wrote:Nagging question...

As evidenced by the NEN call... George states several things..something is wrong with him; might be on drugs; and implies that TM was reaching into his pocket for a gun.. (most likely since TM had earbuds; it was for his cellie to answer it as DD said they kept losing the connection) yes I am aware that this is an assumption!!

but... If you thought someone was carrying a gun... and you were following them in the dark... into an unlit area... would your gun be holstered or would you have it out..

I wonder if GZ hung up from NEN because he realized that he was unable to see and needed the second hand to hold the flashlight.. (some reports say that the flashlight at the "T" was on and GZ says it wasn't working)

JMO and question!
Good question, IMO. The only thing is, I think you might be getting your flashlights mixed up?

IIRC, the flashlight at the 'T' was the smaller key-chain one on his keys, and the larger non-working one was closer to Trayvon's body. IIRC, there is possibly one more, mentioned in Santiago's statement across the side walk from the keys (and the leaf), it looks like it can be seen in one of the crime scene pictures on the ground by the trash can. That flashlight is not mentioned in any other reports, so I'm not sure if it really is another flashlight or not.

Weird thing, IIRC, GZ doesn't say much about the flashlight(s) in any of his statements...
Then I think, supposidly he wasn't really 'looking' Trayvon, he was 'looking' for an address, right?

ETA-Santiago, page 16/183 doc dump...
"I observed a key chain lying in the grass near the T portion of the walkway, a black flashlight lying on the grass just east of the keychain."

Thank you @ Kimmy you are quite right I do think that I have the flashlights mixed up... so difficult to keep track in this case as there is so many conflicting police reports and GZ stories! I do however, think that a reasonable person who thought that someone was "suspicious" and potentially "armed" would have been holding their own weapon...

Can someone tell me how easy it would be to remove a concealed weapon from a holster from tucked into their pants if it was not secured to their belt? Is it possible to do with only one hand??

by justanopinion Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:46 pm

documentation re: what I was confused on...

George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin Case -- General Discussion #8 - Page 19 Flashl10

George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin Case -- General Discussion #8 - Page 19 Des_of10

by KimmyK Mon Jan 14, 2013 2:40 pm

JAO,
I totally agree, it is very difficult to keep track in this case...there is so many conflicting police reports
and GZ stories!

I also agree...a reasonable person who thought that someone was "suspicious" and potentially "armed" would have been holding their own weapon... JMO

IMO, very true, and how does one reasonably believe GZ is reasonable??? roflao

As for GZ's weapon and holster...I don't have a clue on that one, but another very good question!!

by colsnipe Mon Jan 14, 2013 2:57 pm

justanopinion wrote:
KimmyK wrote:
Good question, IMO. The only thing is, I think you might be getting your flashlights mixed up?

IIRC, the flashlight at the 'T' was the smaller key-chain one on his keys, and the larger non-working one was closer to Trayvon's body. IIRC, there is possibly one more, mentioned in Santiago's statement across the side walk from the keys (and the leaf), it looks like it can be seen in one of the crime scene pictures on the ground by the trash can. That flashlight is not mentioned in any other reports, so I'm not sure if it really is another flashlight or not.

Weird thing, IIRC, GZ doesn't say much about the flashlight(s) in any of his statements...
Then I think, supposidly he wasn't really 'looking' Trayvon, he was 'looking' for an address, right?

ETA-Santiago, page 16/183 doc dump...
"I observed a key chain lying in the grass near the T portion of the walkway, a black flashlight lying on the grass just east of the keychain."

Thank you @ Kimmy you are quite right I do think that I have the flashlights mixed up... so difficult to keep track in this case as there is so many conflicting police reports and GZ stories! I do however, think that a reasonable person who thought that someone was "suspicious" and potentially "armed" would have been holding their own weapon...

Can someone tell me how easy it would be to remove a concealed weapon from a holster from tucked into their pants if it was not secured to their belt? Is it possible to do with only one hand??

BBM-depends on the holster. most holsters CCW holsters either attached via the belt or thru a clip or a paddle. (look up paddle holsters)-If it is a clip sometimes the holster will come with the gun when pulled. if it is a paddle or belt holster the holster normally does not come with the gun. now if the clip is "locked" under the belt the holster normally does not come with the gun when pulled.

Just for the record.

by colsnipe Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:09 pm

Here is an interesting question...where are the injuries to the front or sides of GZ head/skull from the force of TM slamming GZ’s head into the pavement?

Does anyone remember Newton’s Laws?

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html

Snipped- for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Where are the bruises to the front or sides of the head?

There would be resistant marks from Gz trying to prevent Tm from slamming his head into the pavement.

by justanopinion Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:12 pm

colsnipe wrote:Here is an interesting question...where are the injuries to the front or sides of GZ head/skull from the force of TM slamming GZ’s head into the pavement?

Does anyone remember Newton’s Laws?

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html

Snipped- for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Where are the bruises to the front or sides of the head?

There would be resistant marks from Gz trying to prevent Tm from slamming his head into the pavement.

Thank you .... the notation from Det. Serino... (posted above) said it was a nylon holster that had no retention strap... and was not attached to a belt... being from Canada I have no legal access to anything like this so was wondering.. Embarassed

by Alessandra_Deux Mon Jan 14, 2013 6:45 pm

justanopinion wrote:
colsnipe wrote:Here is an interesting question...where are the injuries to the front or sides of GZ head/skull from the force of TM slamming GZ’s head into the pavement?

Does anyone remember Newton’s Laws?

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html

Snipped- for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Where are the bruises to the front or sides of the head?

There would be resistant marks from Gz trying to prevent Tm from slamming his head into the pavement.

Thank you .... the notation from Det. Serino... (posted above) said it was a nylon holster that had no retention strap... and was not attached to a belt... being from Canada I have no legal access to anything like this so was wondering..

Pictures of Zimmeman's holster:

George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin Case -- General Discussion #8 - Page 19 DSCN0256

George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin Case -- General Discussion #8 - Page 19 DSCN0255

by Freckles Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:03 pm

Generic info on the Brady Disclosure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_disclosure

" . The term comes from the U.S. Supreme Court case, Brady v. Maryland,[1] in which the Supreme Court ruled that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to a defendant who has requested it violates due process. Following Brady, the prosecutor must disclose evidence or information that would prove the innocence of the defendant or would enable the defense to more effectively impeach the credibility of government witnesses. Evidence that would serve to reduce the defendant's sentence must also be disclosed by the prosecution."

Examples are provided on page.

" Police officers who have been dishonest are sometimes referred to as "Brady cops." Because of the Brady ruling, prosecutors are required to notify defendants and their attorneys whenever a law enforcement official involved in their case has a sustained record for knowingly lying in an official capacity.[8]"

by Freckles Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:12 pm

colsnipe wrote:Here is an interesting question...where are the injuries to the front or sides of GZ head/skull from the force of TM slamming GZ’s head into the pavement?

Does anyone remember Newton’s Laws?

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html

Snipped- for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Where are the bruises to the front or sides of the head?

There would be resistant marks from Gz trying to prevent Tm from slamming his head into the pavement.

BBM.
I had not thought of this. You are stating there should have been bruising or marks on GZ's head caused by TM' hands when he held GZ to bash the head to the sidewalk?

GZ had no hair to speak of.
TM would have had to grab on to something in order to bash GZ head to the pavement let alone "24 times".
(I had wondered how he could have done that repetitive motion with nothing to hold on to? GZ' ears are still in tact! )
So you are stating TM would have applied pressure to the front or sides of GZ' head and that would have created bruising or other marks????

Interesting. Very interesting. And there are NO side/frontal marks indicating a type of pressure grip for even two "head bashes" (down/up, down/up) let alone the 24 GZ counted.

awe

by Freckles Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:18 pm

justanopinion wrote:documentation re: what I was confused on...

In the first report, the crime scene supervisor reported see the flashlight near the "T".
He states it was illuminated, ie, TURNED ON AND EMITTING LIGHT.

by Freckles Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:29 pm

justanopinion wrote:Nagging question...

As evidenced by the NEN call... George states several things..something is wrong with him; might be on drugs; and implies that TM was reaching into his pocket for a gun.. (most likely since TM had earbuds; it was for his cellie to answer it as DD said they kept losing the connection) yes I am aware that this is an assumption!!

but... If you thought someone was carrying a gun... and you were following them in the dark... into an unlit area... would your gun be holstered or would you have it out..

I wonder if GZ hung up from NEN because he realized that he was unable to see and needed the second hand to hold the flashlight.. (some reports say that the flashlight at the "T" was on and GZ says it wasn't working)

JMO and question!

First, I would not have left the car I was in;
Second, I would have waited by the mailboxes for the PD;
Third, if I did NOT want to wait by the mailboxes, I would have DRIVEN the car around the block of housing units to see where the person went. I would have stayed in my car.
Fourth, When told not told follow, I would take the suggestion from an authority more experienced than I was;
Fifth, When I have told NEN I was looking for an addy, I would have kept the line OPEN and actually given them an addy. From the safety of my car and in compliance with NEN.
Sixth, Had I stupidly exited my car to pursue someone in contradiction to the NEN instructions, I would have had my GUN IN HAND. After all, based on what GZ stated to NEN, TM was acting suspicious and had something near his waistband. And I have a GUN.

Conclusion:
No matter what, GZ acted stupidly. He was mistaken in what he saw and what he believed re TM and he how he responded.
That is a FELONY MISTAKE, GZ .

Florida legislature is now considering dumping the SYG defense.
Seems too many have used this to get by with pre-planned murder.
GZ just tipped it over the edge.
Thanks, GZ! By your actions, you have contributed to a right of the people of Florida to SYG being taken away.

by colsnipe Tue Jan 15, 2013 1:11 am

Alessandra_Deux wrote:
justanopinion wrote:

Thank you .... the notation from Det. Serino... (posted above) said it was a nylon holster that had no retention strap... and was not attached to a belt... being from Canada I have no legal access to anything like this so was wondering..

Pictures of Zimmeman's holster:

i am familiar with the style of holster; and regarding it i have had a hard time with this style. the holster tends to come with the gun when pulled. the clip is weak at best. so it might require 2 hands.-JMO.

by colsnipe Tue Jan 15, 2013 1:20 am

Freckles wrote:
justanopinion wrote:Nagging question...

As evidenced by the NEN call... George states several things..something is wrong with him; might be on drugs; and implies that TM was reaching into his pocket for a gun.. (most likely since TM had earbuds; it was for his cellie to answer it as DD said they kept losing the connection) yes I am aware that this is an assumption!!

but... If you thought someone was carrying a gun... and you were following them in the dark... into an unlit area... would your gun be holstered or would you have it out..

I wonder if GZ hung up from NEN because he realized that he was unable to see and needed the second hand to hold the flashlight.. (some reports say that the flashlight at the "T" was on and GZ says it wasn't working)

JMO and question!
First, I would not have left the car I was in;
Second, I would have waited by the mailboxes for the PD;
Third, if I did NOT want to wait by the mailboxes, I would have DRIVEN the car around the block of housing units to see where the person went. I would have stayed in my car.
Fourth, When told not told follow, I would take the suggestion from an authority more experienced than I was;
Fifth, When I have told NEN I was looking for an addy, I would have kept the line OPEN and actually given them an addy. From the safety of my car and in compliance with NEN.
Sixth, Had I stupidly exited my car to pursue someone in contradiction to the NEN instructions, I would have had my GUN IN HAND. After all, based on what GZ stated to NEN, TM was acting suspicious and had something near his waistband. And I have a GUN.

Conclusion:
No matter what, GZ acted stupidly. He was mistaken in what he saw and what he believed re TM and he how he responded.
That is a FELONY MISTAKE, GZ .

Florida legislature is now considering dumping the SYG defense.
Seems too many have used this to get by with pre-planned murder.
GZ just tipped it over the edge.
Thanks, GZ! By your actions, you have contributed to a right of the people of Florida to SYG being taken away.

OK...Freckles---- Cool

Now GZ, let us hear that you were afraid for your life...let us hear how TM terrified you and how he was a terrorist.
GET REAL,GZ! You left a Cell

for all of those who want to use SYG legally!

by KimmyK Tue Jan 15, 2013 2:48 am

Where WAS Jeremy???

by justanopinion Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:00 am

colsnipe wrote:
Alessandra_Deux wrote:

Pictures of Zimmeman's holster:

i am familiar with the style of holster; and regarding it i have had a hard time with this style. the holster tends to come with the gun when pulled. the clip is weak at best. so it might require 2 hands.-JMO.

I really liked your question about the bruising... GZ would have been sweaty from the "looking for an address" (rotfl) and if not from that from "fighting for his life" (omg I slay me) and most likely he should have bruising on some part of his head..even when he was "being suffocated" when TM allegedly had his nose and mouth covered. In a life and death struggle I would expect that the pics would show some kind of sidewalk burn... or his face pressure marks!

Regarding the holster... so if you were on your back; with someone straddling you; with it tucked into your pants, and you are trying to beat someone who just saw it... well we all know where I am going here!! crystal ball

by colsnipe Tue Jan 15, 2013 9:09 am

DOWN.

by Lash Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:31 am

colsnipe wrote:i am familiar with the style of holster; and regarding it i have had a hard time with this style. the holster tends to come with the gun when pulled. the clip is weak at best. so it might require 2 hands.-JMO.

Hi Colsnipe - Thank you for sharing your experience with this holster.

Colsnipe's experience with this type of holster is just that, their experience. It does not define everyone's experience with this holster. There are many things to consider when determining if a particular holster is right for you. A persons weight, the type of clothing they wear, the type of gun, where they prefer to position the holster on their body and more. All of these things factor into whether a particular holster is going to work for you. Everyone's body is shaped differently. We all have different clothing preferences and because of these individual qualities, what doesn't work for one MAY work for another. In other words, GZ's holster type cannot be used to determine how many hands he did or did not use.

by Guest Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:36 pm

Freckles shared:

Florida legislature is now considering dumping the SYG defense.
Seems too many have used this to get by with pre-planned murder.
GZ just tipped it over the edge.
Thanks, GZ! By your actions, you have contributed to a right of the people of Florida to SYG being taken away.

Freckles - if you think something brought BEFORE the legislature always passes, you are mistaken, in this case, the Governor appointed a committee to see if changes needed to be made to the existing law, the Governor's committee found very few.

imo, some people in Fla. might want the law repealed, many may not want the law repealed, it is not not likely in a State w/1 million plus concealed weapons and millions more guns, they elect those to Congress/Senate that represent their interest, Congressman/Senator's are elected by the people and WORK for the people. 24 plus States across America have some form of SYG Law. In Fla., imo, there could be changes made to the law in the Legislature, but that remains to be seen, I predict the law will remain.

The findings of the Governor's committee:

In the end, the task force made a few minor recommendations, opting to leave much of the heavy-lifting to the Legislature and the courts.

The task force recommended that the Legislature look more closely at the language determining who could claim self-defense under the law.

It also recommended changing the law to discourage neighborhood watch volunteers from engaging in vigilantism.

It asked the Legislature and the law enforcement community to spend more time clarifying what the law means for police.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stand-your-ground-panel-suggests-few-changes-to-floridas-self-defense-law/1261408

Although many of you commenting on this thread have convicted GZ, a GENTLE REMINDER that GZ hasn't been convicted of anything despite the hypotheticals shared, it is the facts/evidence that will determine the guilt/innocence of GZ hopefully, but as KZ has said, the case is won and lost in voir dire, KC's case is a good example of that. KC's jury needed a video of the events, will GZ's too since there is so much reasonable doubt?

Many of us continue to evaluate the evidence and believe GZ is guaranteed the presumption of innocence, a right to a fair trial, and a right to a zealous defense.

by Freckles Tue Jan 15, 2013 2:30 pm

art tart wrote:
Freckles shared:

Florida legislature is now considering dumping the SYG defense.
Seems too many have used this to get by with pre-planned murder.
GZ just tipped it over the edge.
Thanks, GZ! By your actions, you have contributed to a right of the people of Florida to SYG being taken away.

Freckles - if you think something brought BEFORE the legislature always passes, you are mistaken, in this case, the Governor appointed a committee to see if changes needed to be made to the existing law, the Governor's committee found very few.
---Please! I am too old for your elementary school lecture! Since you want to go there, are you aware a bill must be brought before the legislature before a law is changed? Either that or before the people with a ballot vote? Hmmm. Sometimes it is changed directly though the courts! Isn't that exciting? And on other issues, the president tosses in his two-bits and tries executive order! He gets the trump card, it seems. Ask NY.

imo, some people in Fla. might want the law repealed, many may not want the law repealed, it is not not likely in a State w/1 million plus concealed weapons and millions more guns, they elect those to Congress/Senate that represent their interest, Congressman/Senator's are elected by the people and WORK for the people. 24 plus States across America have some form of SYG Law. In Fla., imo, there could be changes made to the law in the Legislature, but that remains to be seen, I predict the law will remain.
--Interesting what you predict, I am sure.
The facts are the laws ARE being changed daily and gun laws are being challenged across the US. Just as the President, Veep, and many others are demanding.

CLIPPED FOR SPACE

Although many of you commenting on this thread have convicted GZ, a GENTLE REMINDER that GZ hasn't been convicted of anything despite the hypotheticals shared, it is the facts/evidence that will determine the guilt/innocence of GZ hopefully, but as KZ has said, the case is won and lost in voir dire, KC's case is a good example of that. KC's jury needed a video of the events, will GZ's too since there is so much reasonable doubt?
-- A gentle reminder? GZ is anything but "GENTLE". We ALL know what GZ has not been convicted of yet. But it appears he is adding to it with the AIS suit. Or does that just underscore the character of the case? Look to his PERSONAL HISTORY. lol!

Many of us continue to evaluate the evidence and believe GZ is guaranteed the presumption of innocence, a right to a fair trial, and a right to a zealous defense.

--We each are presumed innocent, etc.
Even dead Trayvon should have had that right, yes?
There is no evidence he did anything wrong.

by justanopinion Tue Jan 15, 2013 2:58 pm

for Freckles... lol

--We each are presumed innocent, etc.
Even dead Trayvon should have had that right, yes?
There is no evidence he did anything wrong.

Unless you count GZ word and the witness statements... all of which are subject to interpretation... i.e.: the white shirt!! which no one had on!!

by Guest Tue Jan 15, 2013 3:44 pm

justanopinion wrote:for Freckles... lol

--We each are presumed innocent, etc.
Even dead Trayvon should have had that right, yes?
There is no evidence he did anything wrong.

Unless you count GZ word and the witness statements... all of which are subject to interpretation... i.e.: the white shirt!! which no one had on!!

Yes indeed everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. GZ has rights as does TM.

Considering the words of GZ as BACKED UP by some of the witness statements , the witness ask to call 911 observing the altercation, the injuries sustained, at least 4 witnesses have been discredited, the witnesses that were inside, or on the stairs or looking through a window were not close to the alteration and will not play, imo, an important part because they were not close enough to determine what was happening during the altercation, DeeDee is most questionable. (imo, MOM/West will have a graph showing the distance the witnesses were from the altercation)

All you have is reasonable doubt imo. the State can't refute the evidence of the altercation, GZ being on bottom, asking the witness to call 911, the injuries NOR DeeDee claiming TM was by Brandi's although that is not where he died.

Just think of the undisputable evidence the State is up against, the State doesn't even know who threw the first punch and has admitted so.

Hornsby, Criminal Def Attorney that has tried cases before Judge Nelson said "the screaming for help wouldn't likely come in as the parent's at one point couldn't determine the voice, IF it did come in, it would be a WASH." Hornsby too said"the law suit by the security firm too wouldn't come in, it has no relevance to the case." He too stated the racial slur that some hear as "coon" would not likely come in since EVEN the State can't make out the words,he said it sounds like whatever you want it to believe it says." The State can't claim this definitely.

Remember, the State needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, the State has the burden to prove their case. There are so many glaring holes in their case now and MOM/West STILL have so many depositions left to do. The SYG Hearing, GZ's claim of "self defense" will be tried in 3 months.

by Lash Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:06 pm

Respectfully snipped -

Freckles wrote:
Sixth, Had I stupidly exited my car to pursue someone in contradiction to the NEN instructions, I would have had my GUN IN HAND. After all, based on what GZ stated to NEN, TM was acting suspicious and had something near his waistband. And I have a GUN.

In my opinion, it would be stupid to exit the car. BUT in Florida NOTHING in your number six would have been illegal. Stupid, not illegal.

I consider myself a reasonable person. If I exited my vehicle I would not have had my gun in hand until my life was in imminent danger.

by Freckles Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:50 pm

GZ' rights are well protected.
Pity is, TM never got the same chance to have HIS rights explored, presented in a court, and protected.
Where is the equality?

If I understand your thinking, TM got what he deserved because he DARED to walk on a sidewalk where GZ did NOT want him walking. Because TM did that, TM walked in FRONT of a bullet and DESERVED what he got coming.
How dare the black teen TM NOT fit the PROFILE GZ set up for him? How dare TM even begin to think HE had rights, too?

UP

by Alessandra_Deux Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:11 pm

Zimmerman's statements totally contradict the evidence, the alleged encounter with Trayvon did not take place by the "T" as he has alleged. The proof of that is that Trayvon's body was located about 35 yards south of the "T".

Zimmerman did not only made a series of inconsistent statements, many pieces of evidence are in direct contradiction with his claims of self defense.

A few pages back, Justanopinion asked a question regarding Trayvon's cell phone, "why was Trayvon's phone 12 feet away from his body?"........Trayvon cell phone was not only several feet away from his body, it was found south of his body; Zimmerman flashlight was also found south of Trayvon's body.

The spent shell casing and the 7-Eleven beige bag were also contained within the area where Trayvon's body was found ( at the scene of the crime).

When Galbraith testified at Zimmerman's bond hearing, he said "we have Mr. Zimmerman's statements, we have the shell casing(s) and we have Trayvon's body", those are without a doubt very important key issues.

Forensics expert are going to be able to determine where Zimmerman was when he fired the fatal shot.

It is my opinion that Zimmerman will be denied his motion for immunity, there are many complex issues involved in this case that need to be decided at a jury trial.

by Guest Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:03 pm

Freckles" shared- GZ' rights are well protected.
Pity is, TM never got the same chance to have HIS rights explored, presented in a court, and protected.

Where is the equality?

Freckles - the State will represent TM's rights in the trial, you know that right? You understand that's how our Judicial system works I am assuming. Not ONLY are TM's rights explored at taxpayer's expense, the State has ENDLESS RESOURCES to explore his rights. The good news for you is Freckles, the State NEVER runs out of money to investigate.

If I understand your thinking, TM got what he deserved because he DARED to walk on a sidewalk where GZ did NOT want him walking.

Freckles - I have grown TIRED of your accusations that those that want a fair trial for GZ think TM got what he deserved.

The accusation is insulting and an OUTRIGHT LIE, & imo, you know that, it's just an insult to hurl, of course no one believes your statement.

You said it correctly, "If I understand your thinking," the point is, you don't understand a lot apparently as you just make up ridiculous accusations of others.

KZ told you this AGAIN 2 or 3 weeks ago, "no one has said on this thread that TM got what he deserved. NO ONE! I have corrected you countless times for the insult you hurled at me, HOW MANY times is it going to take for you to understand this? Some of our best contributors have left for this type of BS that is hurled at those that state their opinions supporting GZ's right to a fair trial and say it is a pain in the a$$ to have a conversation based on facts as it is almost impossible here.

How dare the black teen TM NOT fit the PROFILE GZ set up for him? How dare TM even begin to think HE had rights, too?

You continue to confuse the laws that state no one has the right to assault another person for any reason. TM THOUGHT he had rights to give a beat down, he didn't, he broke the law, he didn't have the RIGHT to do so.

Because TM did that, TM walked in FRONT of a bullet and DESERVED what he got coming.

Just to state the facts correctly: TM didn't walk in FRONT of a bullet, he was SHOT during an illegal assault of GZ while giving a beat down.

by Freckles Tue Jan 15, 2013 8:12 pm

" TM THOUGHT he had rights to give a beat down, he didn't, he broke the law, he didn't have the RIGHT to do so."

You don't know what Trayvon Martin thought.

You don't know if TM gave a "beat down" on George.
There is no evidence George had a "beat down" let alone from TM.
You state TM broke the law yet there is NO evidence indicating TM broke ANY law!

I maintain: There is no evidence to show TM was in violation of any law OR instigated any transaction between GZ and himself.

GZ' injuries were far from life threatening.
GZ had priors as an adult; he was no longer the cute little altar boy.

by Guest Tue Jan 15, 2013 9:17 pm

Freckles shared:

You don't know if TM gave a "beat down" on George.

I do know that, the witness that GZ ask to call 911 witnessed the altercation, saw GZ receiving a beat down at the hands of TM, the injuries support the beat down.
KZ too told you this last week.

Freckles, you can remain in denial and spin bull any way you want, you CAN'T PROVIDE any evidence to support your theories. The FACTS support that GZ took a beat down by TM, FACTS DON'T CHANGE, it's your prerogative to continue to deny the facts.

You don't know what Trayvon Martin thought.

I can tell you what TM WAS NOT THINKING ! He could have gone inside Brandi's house where Chad was waiting on him, he could have called 911 if he were fearful, he could have watched the game as he said he would.

TM had a lot of choices, he decided to give GZ a beat down and he did just that. You don't have to believe it, sit back and watch the SYG hearing where it is layed out for you.

There is no evidence George had a "beat down" let alone from TM.

Freckles - this is the last time I am going to address this to you, then I will scroll and roll past your name, you CONTINUE to DENY the evidence. That's okay, but I am not wasting my time explaining to you anymore since you can READ THE EVIDENCE for yourself. Do you not believe it because you haven't BOTHERED reading the available information and evidence? Believe anything you want, I believe and trust the facts, the facts SUPPORT TM gave GZ a beat down and the witness supports the beat down and altercation.

You state TM broke the law yet there is NO evidence indicating TM broke ANY law!

Freckles - the EVIDENCE is, TM assaulted GZ as WITNESSED by a bystander that GZ ask to call 911. Do you understand ASSAULT is illegal and that assaulting someone is breaking the law? You can remain to continue to DENY the facts. It doesn't change anything.

GZ' injuries were far from life threatening.

GZ's injuries didn't have to be life threatening, GZ had to believe his life was threatened. TM could have stopped the beating at any time, he CHOSE NOT TO!

GZ had priors as an adult; he was no longer the cute little altar boy

Freckles - frankly I find this comment childish. TM was not the innocent 14 yr. old portrayed in the Hollister photos either NOR was he the kid the football Coach talked about from 3 years prior when he was 14 that his parents wanted the public and the MEDIA to believe, the photo of a 14 yr old TM in his football uniform was shown for a reason, that is not how TM looked at the time of his death nor is it the person he was. GEEZ Louise, seems the family would at least have given the MEDIA HONEST/appropriate photos of TM at the time of his death instead of misrepresenting what he looked like, he too wasn't the innocent face his parents presented nor was he the innocent young man his parent's wanted you to believe. The fact is, TM stood 6'2" tall and GZ was 5'8. TM's behavior reflects his appreciation of the Gansta mentality, look the pictures up if you haven't seen them, read the Gansta Nigg! tweets to see the young man TM was, a troubled 17 yr. young man making bad choices and continually being suspended from school. The behavior and defiance TM had exhibited in 6 months of school showed that he continued to make BAD CHOICES by CHOICE, he wasn't in special education. imo, TM made a BAD CHOICE to choose to beat down GZ.

by Sponsored content