You know Bricker, I am really starting to appreciate you more after this thread. You have been a real voice of reason, and have been quite nice to me when I made some layman’s errors. Thanks for both. 
Who specifically has claimed otherwise? Some have repeated what Zimmerman stated with regard to leaving the vehicle. I don’t think anyone has suggested that it is impossible that Zimmerman followed Martin on foot.
IF the gunshot was lawful, as in self defense, it negates it, as the statute calls for the UNlawful killing.
Well to be honest I have not seen any of the evidence, unless a picture of the shooter and the victim count. But some facts are no in dispute by anyone, the most obvious is that Zimmerman shot Martin with his gun. So I am not sure what you expect to come out of a ballistics report or CSI. We also know that Zimmerman claims he was acting in self-defense, not in dispute. We know where he was shot. I would say we know considerably more than 1% of the evidence.
The wiki is a little unclear. It says: “The police took Trayvon Martin’s body and stored it in a morgue for three days, calling him John Doe.” Then later says the father filed the report etc. the next morning. I suspect it’s just poorly worded. In any case, it’s strange that the appears to be no attempt to see if anyone knew the boy. Stranger yet, wouldn’t Martin’s parents see the kerfluffle outside and investigate, especially after he didn’t return? Maybe he was home alone at the time?
Listen to the interview more carefully. Austin McClendon never said that the person he saw on the ground initially was Martin and he never said he saw two people on the ground. You need to separate what McClendon actually said from what Maurice Garland wrote.
The most interesting part was where McClendon talked about how dark it was. It would tend to cast some doubt about whether the other witness “John” could tell a red shirt from a gray shirt. I checked and sunset would have been at 6:24 in Sanford that night. I’ll have to check how dark it is in my backyard at 36 minutes after sunset.
Again replying only to address a point that other readers might miss, and not to initiate a further debate with you, Stoid.
I absolutely think Stoid and others believe this point, which is what makes them so sure this is depraved mind / reckless conduct / etc.
But since Florida law allows people to carry loaded guns in public, as a matter of law, it can’t be per se depraved mind / reckless conduct to do so.
So a lawful act cannot be per se imminently dangerous? If I’m reading that statute right, if it is a lawful self-defense killing, we don’t even have to get to the part determining whether the act was imminently dangerous. I don’t think it means it’s not imminently dangerous.
Evidence (witnesses and wounds to Zimmerman) suggest that Martin had the “upper hand”.*
*I have not seen reports that there were other wounds to Martin beyond the GSW. If it turns out there are then who had the “upper hand” becomes less evident, but there are still witness accounts that mostly agree that Martin was on top of Zimmerman.
I distinctly remember rolling my eyes while reading this thread when certain posters rejected the 911 tape as proof of Zimmerman doing any chasing. Those sounds that sound like movement? That could be anything. And “chase” is not the same thing as “follow”, as Bricker pointed out. He could have been tailing Martin from his car, which would be different than pursuing him on foot.
The thread is just way too long for me to go back and find these posts. But I assure that I did not make them up.
No need to take such an adversarial tone, please note that i was ASKING for better cites to get the facts, since what is ALSO in the wiki cite is this:
So you point to one part of the wiki, I another. Hence my confusion and request for better answers.
Because here’s more from the wiki article that points to the need for clarification (and answers your request for a cite to the idea that the investigation ended almost immediately):
And Kimmy’s post makes this look incredibly lame:
I can’t disagree. However it does not remove his right to defend himself as Florida law allows.
Certainly is possible, but I wouldn’t expect prior to a trial that the public would be privy to any of Martin’s juvenile records (if such exist).
A lawful act can be dangerous, sure, the way I facially read it though is, the ACT itself must be not only be UNlawful but ID.
It is imminently dangerous to drop a child from a second story window, but if there is a fire and the rescuer feels it will save the baby’s life, is this an unlawful act?
Sometimes forest fires are started to STOP the spread of an oncoming fire, cut off the energy continuation, no fuel.
This is my hunch as well. Further, I would bet dollars against donuts, that Zimmerman tried to restrain Martin somehow – grabbing a sleeve or something – and Martin struggled to get away. Did Martin then get the upper hand in some sort of altercation? Maybe. Quite possibly, really. But that doesn’t warrant getting shot in the chest.
Where is the personal responsibility in Zimmerman for turning an innocent kid walking down the street into a violent confrontation? And that’s what happened, whether Martin socked him in the nose first or not. Zimmerman’s actions caused this whole fucked up situation. Martin was reacting to them.
No, I don’t either, which is why I included the definitions of depraved mind as the law sees it: it doesn’t mean some drooling monster out of touch with reality.
In post 1346 I simply answered a question you asked of another poster: “So what do you say in your affidavit to the judge that shows probable cause to believe that a blood sample from Zimmerman will reveal the fruits of a crime?”
You didn’t like that answer so your goal post has now shifted to address my opinion as to what the cops should have done. you know better than I what standard steps are taken in the event someone is shot in an altercation but IMO the police should take sufficient forensic evidence to reconstruct what happened and corroborate all the witness’s statements. And IMO they should also attempt to ascertain the physical and mental state of both the shooter and the victim. To put it another way, they should give it at least the same treatment as a fatal car accident.
Not suggesting that you did. Merely suggesting that maybe you interpreted those statements a bit differently than intended. I am fairly certain in my mind that most likely he followed Martin on foot. However I don’t find it unreasonable that certain wind conditions, breathing patterns, and/or pacing in circles might sound like what we heard on the 911 tape.
I don’t dispute the evidence, I simply find the evidence we have to be less than “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Now on the side of a civil suit, I think there may already be preponderance of evidence enough to cause Zimmerman trouble.
There is also evidence that Zimmerman had the upper hand because he brought a gun to a Skittles fight and he was not the one with a gunshot wound to the chest.
ASSUMING that the description of Zimmerman’s account is correct and his action to shoot was spurred by the alleged attack in the street, it does not matter that Martin was on top of him. It does not prove that Martin chased him either. It just means that Martin was observed being on top of him for the moment that the witness saw them.
None of the witness’s interviews prove or disprove anything. They only beg other information.
Stoid, I am glad I’m not the only one who believes “on-going investigation” really means “oops, we better go back to what we were about to shut down for good”. When I started this thread, the Dispassionate weren’t saying that the police didn’t have enough probable cause at this moment in time. They were saying there wasn’t enough to make a successful case. There was lecturing about how the prosecution would only be wasting its time and that it would be unfair to make them take a unwinnable case. So early on, even here, the case was talked about in terms of futility and “unwinnability” in a court of law. There was distinct tone of past tense.
The appeals to “wait and see, there is more to come!” came later, when the outrage made this a national story and evidence, like the phone logs, were brought to the police’s attention.
You saw it and I did too. But no doubt our observation will be deemed incorrect… the result of too much shrill in our diets.
I was not at all aware it was temporary, in local Florida news they simply said he RESIGNED with no temporary qualifier. Check the link I posted.
Again I didn’t mean to misrepresent anything, I was just reporting what I had heard.
Actual headline below:
Where is the temporary?
True, l:dubious:ike these posts::rolleyes:
#3 needscoffee “Maybe they’re figuring out what degree of crime he can be reasonably convicted of based on scant evidence? Murder vs manslaughter, 1st degree, 2nd degree, etc. At this point there’s only his word on what happened, and they need evidence to get a conviction.”
#8 Shemdrick “*So what? Disobeying the 911 operator (are they even actual cops?) is not an actual crime, is it? And if he then found himself in legitimate fear of his life, he may have acted in self defense.
Not saying that’s necessarily what happened, of course. “*
#9 Martin Hyde “*Could be the prosecution is going over this guy’s story to decide if:
a) if he committed a crime if his story is true
b) if his story is true / sounds credible / sounds like bullshit
c) if, in their opinion the story is bullshit and/or it’s true but reflects a crime, do they have sufficient evidence and ability to convict him of anything”*
#16 Cheshire Human “The simple answer to the OP, “Why hasn’t the Neighborhood Watch shooter been arrested?”, is “The cops/prosecutor don’t yet have enough information/evidence to support an arrest.” That’s it. No other reason. They won’t arrest him until they do have enough, which may or may not happen quickly, or at all. That’s the answer to all questions of that nature. “
:rolleyes::dubious: