Do you have a cite that people heard the word “help” move across the neighborhood? I thought the witnesses just heard the initial loud voices of Martin and Zimmerman which would in fact be moving.
And you left out Dee Dee’s account of Martin running because of the rain.
We know what Zimmerman told the PD about Martin’s location relative to what happened in the NEN call. The kid was supposedly near the clubhouse when he first approached Zimmerman. From there, in less than 1 minute, Martin supposedly ended up behind the houses on TTL, double backed, circled Zimmerman, and then dashed off.
If you think he achieved all of this while walking at 5 mph, then it isn’t surprising to me that you’d be defending Zimmerman.
I can’t find a source for the circling 3 times claim. Doesn’t matter, though. Even if Martin had circled the truck once while running at break neck speed, the timeline still is glaringly off.
Why would they be noticeably moving? Aren’t they both supposed to have been in more or less the same location at the outset?
Look at it this way.
If the encounter happened as Z describes, all ANY witness could have heard was 3 spoken sentences - 1 by Z, 2 by Trayvon - followed very shortly after by Z’s cries for help while he lay on the ground getting beat up.
None of them should have heard a moving argument or struggle of any sort. Z doesn’t say he was stood wrestling with Trayvon after getting punched, he says he went to the floor as a result of the punch and mentions nothing about any further assault or interaction with Trayvon until he hits the floor. He says nothing about shouting, crying or saying anything between the time he was hit and the time Trayvon is supposed to have jumped onto him.
What’s the distinction between “complaining” and “subtly criticizing?”
If I was complaining, I’d go the extra mile and make sure my opinions were heard by those who I’m complaining about. Here on a message board it’s subtly criticising, as opposed to right in your face criticising.
Did I miss something?
Who the hell walks at 5mph???
Oh wait–Zimmerman said he “skipped away”.
He must have been “skipping” at 5mph.
The jurors had no problem with the law itself. It just didn’t apply, one said. “The whole silly thing was over a skateboard,” said jury foreman Walter Joss, “and it just escalated.”
Hmm, not sure that’s a good representation of why SYG doesn’t apply, yet :
*
They testified last week they saw Dooley flip up his T-shirt, revealing a gun in his waistband, as he cursed James. They said Dooley then turned and headed home, but James spun him around and tried to grab the gun.*
James got puff chested about Dooley’s verbal insult and then tried to physically grab or detain Dooley.
What I want to know is whether Dooley had his gun on him because he always has his gun, or if he went there looking to use the gun as means of intimidation.
The latter is near impossible to prove, which makes self defense seem plausible and the fault lies with James as he was the one who initiated the physical violence.
In the UK, the only people in general who have a lethal firearm within convenient distance are some police, some drug dealers and armed robbers. There’s a few people out in the sticks who keep them to fend off predators of all shapes, but on the whole, they just aren’t popular over here among normal, non gun-interested individuals.
So, when one is used to defend a home and the user hasn’t got a known problem with foxes or other invading wildlife, the cops are likely to be a bit suspicious and make sure they dot all i’s and cross all the t’s, before they release them with a pat on the back.
OK.
So to be crystal clear: at what point in the investigation do you contend the Sandford police had sufficient probable cause to arrest or detain Zimmerman?
And are you saying that, in the absence of legal probable cause, the Sanford police should have manufactured probable cause in order to effect an arrest or detention?
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/11/19/175103/detective-in-george-zimmerman.html
There’s also a petition to begin a Federal investigation into malicious prosecution without evidence of the crime of second degree murder.
I agree, James did provoke the shooting. If Dooley was legally permitted to be in possession of a gun where he was, he was entitled to use it in self-defence. The question for me is, was lethal force the only response he could have made? He might have been fearful, but was it really reasonable for him to believe that James was trying to kill him, and shooting him dead was the only way to stop it?
Probably not, yet remember this is Florida which is why it threw me.
Erm… the point where they come across him stood near a dead body, holding the gun that did it.
Z might plead his innocence until he’s blue in the face, but they don’t have to believe him until they’ve checked his story really rings true.
Any police force doing it’s job properly would have realised this case was fishy as fuck the moment they’d listened to his explanation, if they’d taken more detailed witness statements and combined the information with what they knew from his nen call before speaking with him.
No.
For me, the whole concept of self-defence is about proportionate response. The handgun, as a self-defence tool, has been designed to help the weak combat the strong and mean, not as a tool for perfectly capable people to be lazy, immoral bastards and nip a conflict in the bud, whatever the price of ammo.
Hah, I say that about birth control.
The trap we fall into though is thinking that weapons as a means of self defense or as a tool, are only for David vs Goliath situations, the underdog or the out numbered.
There is no reason why someone, capable or otherwise, should take a beating when they have the tool at hand to prevent it. Short answer, don’t attack someone if you don’t want to get shot.
That said, I’d say the much taller football player seen on top during the conflict, who inflicted several injuries on the other, clearly counts as the strong and mean one in this situation.
There’s one important point here that you’re missing. The law should apply to everyone equally, strong or weak, lazy or industrious, of whatever level of morality. If a little old lady attacked by a mugger has the right to defend herself, so does Zimmerman, or Mike Tyson for that matter.
So they arrested Mrs Ferrie because she’s a fox???
Over here among normal, gun-interested individuals, people have a right to defend themselves from attack and FLA law states that people have a right to use lethal force if they believe that they are in imminent (immediate) danger of bodily harm or death. Being beaten as well as wrestling for a firearm with someone you believe is trying to harm or kill you would be considered “imminent danger of bodily harm or death”.
You need to understand that the Queen’s law and opinion doesn’t apply here.
Self-defense wouldn’t even be an issue if TM hadn’t began beating GZ. If you’re looking to identify “immoral bastards”, I suggest you look at who decided to throw the first punch. There is nothing illegal about asking someone why they are where they are.
Neither TM or GZ committed any illegal act in FLA up until the time the first punch was thrown. I’ll suggest that TM might be alive today if he hadn’t attacked GZ.
That’s not sufficient probable cause evidence in Florida law to permit arrest.
What specific facts in that scene allow the police to conclude the force he used was unlawful?
Remember: the law in Florida says: “… the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.” (FSA § 776.032).
So you find him standing near a dead body, holding the gun that did it. How do you now have probable cause that the force used was unlawful?