How do you know the customer was unruly? And even if she was, disproportionate reactions are hardly commendable.
Listen to all his interviews carefully. It’s in there.
Common knowledge on the estate, I think you’d find.
That’s the impression Z and his friend Frank Taafe would have us believe.
He didn’t call the police, he called a NEN. Although why he’d do that when he had no intention of following their advice, seems a little puzzling. He may as well have just cut to the chase and called the police immediately, if he was so sure of his suspicions. A more rational person might have held off phoning anyone until he’d at least done his neighbourhood watch duty and asked this stranger what he was doing in the area.
And Z may as well have not wasted the price of a phone call if he was not going to listen to any advice that was given.
Rather convenient for Z that TM wasn’t a totally sneaky kind of person and gave his victim a chance to face his attacker. The ease with which Martin got close enough to hit Z is remarkable, considering how psyched up you’d expect Z to be for such an eventuality.
Go on, tell me how many Retreat residents have been arrested for using that gap between the two houses.
No, there is clear evidence that Z was injured somehow, and the injuries are far from consistent with his account. The Assertion Game is great, isn’t it?
I think you’ll find that the property he was stood in front of(something he’d have to be doing at some point, if he was heading home via that route) was Z’s friend Frank’s, and it hadn’t been burgled, Z had just seen a suspicious black guy smoking a cig beside the house and there was a window and a door open, so he had to be up to no good.
Unless I have missed some really interesting developments, how can you suggest Martin was trespassing? Was he seen inside a house?
ETA:
Ahhhh.
No, that’s not trespassing, at least not in the criminal sense. There no fences or warning signs. A person walking across the lawn could do so in full view of the Chief of Police and not get arrested.
It’s trespassing. What part of this do you not understand? it’s illegal. Standing next to a house in the rain at night looking around is suspicious.
No, it’s not.
He called the police. He followed the Dispatcher’s request. Cite the rationale behind confronting a suspected burglar.
He followed the request of the Dispatcher. Cite otherwise.
Zimmerman was heading back toward his car. Martin came from behind him.
Cite that it’s not trespassing. If you feel you’re entitled to trespass on other people’s property because someone else does then that’s your cross to bear but it doesn’t change the narrative. . Zimmerman never mentions the cut through. He says the suspect is in the front yard. You’re trying to create an argument where non exists. Start a another thread if you want your conscience assuaged
There is no assertion being made. He has injuries to the back of his head that are consistent with his account. If you believe space aliens came down and caused the injuries immediately after the confrontation that’s your opinion but it doesn’t change the consistency of his story.
OK, I’ll bite, did Frank credit him with stopping a burglary or does he normally leave his window and door open when not at home? Because stopping a burglary means just that. He stopped it from occurring and the open window and door was evidence of the event.
And before you go on a legal tangent I’m not suggesting Martin would have been arrested for trespassing. I understand your point. I merely indicated that he WAS trespassing.
It’s suspicious to have people standing next to a house looking around. It’s more so when it’s dark and raining. It would be suspicious if he was standing in the street doing this but more so when trespassing.
R.C. 2901.01(L) defines “privilege” as “* * * an immunity, license, or right conferred by law, or **bestowed by express or implied grant, **or arising out of status, position, office, or relationship, or growing out of necessity.”
If a property owner acquises in a shortcut, it will be well-nigh impossible to argue that, without notice, the implied grant of permission has suddenly vanished.
Sure. But that does not transform Martin’s act into criminal trespass.
And I said he wasn’t criminally trespassing. Which he wasn’t. If you mean merely to indicate he was standing on property owned by another person, I obviously agree.
How many times would you say a community should be burglarized before they have legitimate concerns over the issue?
The reason Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch was that they had a meeting to discuss what they could do about the crimes (burglary, shootings, etc.) in their community. Zimmerman volunteered, and they accepted him. As mentioned, Zimmerman had stopped a possible burglary in progress some time before the incident.
It sounds like more than something that can be waved away, at least to me.
No I don’t it as evidence. I consider the evidence to be evidence, and I believe Zimmerman’s statement to be truthful to the degree that it is backed up by evidence. No more. Others seem to believe that evidence doesn’t matter, and dismiss it out of hand.
No, this is false. I have laid out the evidence that backs up Zimmerman’s account several times already.
He did call the police immediately.
Wrong again. Zimmerman did what he should have done.
First you want to fault Zimmerman for confronting Martin, then for not confronting him. Could you make your mind up?
I’m not going to get into a huge argument but short of building the Berlin Wall you can’t stop someone from cutting through a property. If someone does this knowingly, it’s trespassing. It’s clear in this instance that it’s private property. There’s no ambiguity involved. I don’t see evidence where the property owner had given permission for people to cut through the property. It’s a gated community.
the test is simple. If the owner calls the police and the subject refuses to leave, they arrest him for trespassing.
I’m just glad that the situation is being investigated. The initial media reports (while admittedly sensationalized) sure painted a questionable situation at the least.
My opinion is that had neither party been carrying a gun, nobody would be dead today.
Had Zimmerman not been packing he would have let the cops do their job and stayed hands off as he was advised to, instead of being emboldened by having a weapon.
I support CCW permits for people responsible enough to use them appropriately, but that’s something that can never, ever be completely controlled. Idiots can and will get CCWs and will also carry illegally. That leads to more dead people, for right or wrong. That’s why a lot of people support gun control, because of the idiots. If it were only well trained, and level headed people carrying, there would be far less of a problem, but that’s not really something that can be tested for, or legislated for effectively. IMO of course.
arrest? absolutely, conviction is a quagmire of discussion that would generally end in “no”.
a fenced area indicates a delineated space with the intent to keep people out. A sidewalk to a door is decidedly less so. A gate cutting off the sidewalk and completing the fenced in area is probably the line in the sand.
Are you disagreeing with the definition of trespassing I posted earlier or just wish to argue conviction rates?
If you get caught up looking at a tree, how will you see the forest?
It’s really a niggling insignificant detail. Kudos on you for keeping it straight, though.
Z had only just arrived at that spot - how would he have known he’d been standing around in the rain looking about him with covetous eyes? If he stopped when Z saw him, it’s highly likely to be because some strange dude had just parked his car over the road and was giving him the eyeball treatment.
We’re right back into disagreement territory again.
He had no valid reason to suspect anyone of being a burglar at that point. Martin’s “suspicious behaviour” was a product of Z’s mind, not TM’s actions. Or are you one of these people who think TM was up to no good, and Z came along just in time?
Debatable. Listen to the NEN call. He didn’t slow down immediately so it’s questionable as to whether he followed the dispatcher’s advice.
Beyond Z’s say so, you have no proof of this and neither does the defence.
I don’t need to cite anything. If someone is walking between two houses and hasn’t climbed over any fences, does it depend on whose house he walks nearest to when it comes to who has the right to charge for trespass? Zimmerman never mentions the cut-through because that would take away all the ordinariness of what TM was doing.
The consistency of his story comes apart when a head that has been slammed repeatedly - let’s say at least twice - has injuries that amount to a couple of slight abrasions and not a single lump to go with them.
An open door and window sounds contrary to what I’d expect in a crime-plagued neighbourhood. From what I’ve seen of Frank, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’d been sat indoors with his weapon of choice just waiting for a black head to pop through one of the intentionally left open entrances to his property, but that’s another avenue entirely.
Guys, the Retreat at Twin Lakes is a condo/rental development, where the dwellings are owned/rented, and the grounds are shared community property. Look it up: the specs for individual units will list no lot line.
Thus, as a house guest of a resident, Trayvon had as much right to cut through that shortcut as he did to walk on the sidewalk.
Also, may I point out that there was a person, a young black male, arrested and convicted of at least one of the local break-ins? This person was already in custody at the time of the shooting. If Zimmerman was connecting Martin to those past crimes, he must have believed that Martin was a confederate of the known burglar, and that Martin was stupid enough to come back to the place where his buddy got popped.
As far as the burglaries and shootings that Shodan referred to, I am not aware of any shootings connected with the Retreat except this one. I am sure that Sanford occasionally does have a shooting, after all, the town averages three murders a year. But no one including Zimmerman has referenced any past shootings.
You kind of made the point for us.. too much speculation surrounding the query you posed, and it’s unable to sufficiently conclude IF Zimmerman wasn’t where he said he was.
Obviously, one is too many, but realistically, on an estate with more than 50 houses, that is supposedly being overran by criminals, a burglary almost every 2 mths doesn’t seem too outrageous. I suppose we’d need to know the burglary rate for the previous 14 mth to broaden the discussion and see if things were getting worse or better.
I’m pretty sure I read somewhere that he got involved because his wife was threatened by a dog, or was that the reason he got his gun? You can believe his intentions were noble if you want, but I just wonder what kind of man gets a gun because there’s a dog running loose on the estate.
I’m not “waving it away,” just suggesting that Z was prone to exaggerating the level of threat.
Which piece of evidence do you think is ignored the most?
What in his narrative rings most true for you?
He called someone working on behalf of the police. Apparently, dispatchers have no authority at all and can only forward your message for you.
Yes, his responses were textbook apart from that dead kid at the end.
I have. He should have confronted him in the most well-lit spot along the route he was following TM, for his own safety, or just in case his suspicions were wrong, but that never seemed to enter Z’s head.