GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-19-2012, 17:40   #226
kensteele
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Leawood, KS
Posts: 7,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by slimgoodman View Post
After Zimmerman's REFUSAL to follow police instructions and WAIT until REAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS arrived how can anything Zimmerman said or claims to have happened be TRUSTED AS ACCURATE due to his documented REFUSAL to follow official police orders/instructions. Why the refusal!!!! UNLESS---Police TOLD him or led him (Zimmerman) to believe it's OK to engage in such a potentially dangerous activity----a complete investigation is desparately needed --maybe not by the Sanford PD since what they told Zimmerman to do or not do will be in question. The list of "what if" or "maybe" is endless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATW525 View Post
What police orders/instructions? A call taker (not a police officer) simply said "We don't need you to do that," in regards to Zimmerman following Martin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misty02 View Post
A 911 Operator is not the police. Even if they provided an order (which they didn’t) you aren’t required by law to follow it.

Our doctors have more authority over us than a 911 operator, and we still don't always follow their orders/suggestions.
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by G30Mike View Post
I didn't hear the dispatcher give him any "orders", he basically advised Zman that "We don't need you to do that"(follow him). Zman just said "Okay".
I'm not saying he was right in following the kid, I sure as hell wouldn't have, but he wasn't "ordered" to stop.
I'm sure because of the public outcry, there will be a more in depth investigation, as there should be IMO. None of us knows exactly what happened, but if he was stupid enough to play wannabe cop, then he's stupid enough to lie and fabricate a story to try and save his own ass.
If it was in fact a physical altercation that led to an attempted gun grab, then it sounds pretty justified to me. Someone attempts to grab my gun, it may have the exact outcome that this case had. But I know I don't want to play hero and follow someone I think may be up to no good and put myself in that situation to begin with.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.....
We don't know if the dispatch is a sworn officer or not. Apparently Zman dialed a non-911 number so we don't know who is on the other end of the call. Personally (IANAL), I don't believe it matters if dispatch has a badge or not because Zman would not know if the dispatcher is a sworn officer or not. Still, perhaps someone can quote the law. I do know dispatchers will testify and they certainly won't convey their discussion as "requests." It could be argued that Zman called the police, assumed he was talking to the police, and therefore was subject to police instructions. He didn't call the bank or he didn't call the neighborhood watch team, he didn't call the convenient store, he called the police and instructions were given and he ignored them, FWIW. Again, not unlawful but it's part of the pattern.

I don't think it amounts to unlawful, disobeying police orders but what is telling is two things: Zman said Ok and then he followed anyway. That's show a pattern of deception. When he said OK, he had no intention of not following. When he said OK at that exact point he intented to follow. The reason why he said OK was to alter the conversation on record and cloud some people's interpretation (not me, I'm not fooled, I see this clearly) as to what exactly happened and fool the police for some odd reason; confirm that with his attempt to fix that part of the conversation with an [odd] request later....he's scheming and planning at this point. Second, it is reported that he has called 911 on dozens and dozens of past occassions. Why the call to a non-911 number this time, is that what happened? What was his intent? Again, I know what I would do to question him on this....believe me, so does the lawyer.

Zman better hope he doesn't has to explain this in open court. Otherwise, he's toast. Normally I would say it's unfair because folks s/b innocent until proven guilty but when the state is blocking this from going to court, that's like interfering with the justice system; that's like asking for problems. If you CHEAT, you have to expect the other side to CHEAT even harder to get justice. In this case, my definition of cheating is refusing to allow the evidence to be heard and judged in open court (not letting this go to trial or even a grand jury). and then cheating would be liberal [social] media, public demonstrations, outlandish articles, race card, and maybe calling the FBI. Nothing unlawful.

Again, I realise what the proper steps are and the timing but even a blind man can see where this is going. Nobody is interested in waiting around until a full investigation announces exhonoration. Seen that rodeo before. Not pretty. Fool me one, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
kensteele is offline  
Old 03-19-2012, 17:40   #227
ATW525
Senior Member
 
ATW525's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 358
Another article about the Trayvon Martin case as it relates to gun laws. This time from Slate:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...osecuted_.html
ATW525 is offline  
Old 03-19-2012, 17:45   #228
kensteele
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Leawood, KS
Posts: 7,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATW525 View Post
Unless I missed something Zimmerman's story isn't public knowledge yet. It seems a bit premature to be calling it lame.
Sorry, I meant his claim to self-defense. Zman claiming he shot Martin to save his own life, to save himself from certain death is bogus.

His story is allegedly; Zman says: "if I had not fired my weapon and shot Martin in the chest, I would be dead for sure."

Who would believe that?

IMO
kensteele is offline  
Old 03-19-2012, 17:52   #229
kensteele
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Leawood, KS
Posts: 7,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATW525 View Post
Another article about the Trayvon Martin case as it relates to gun laws. This time from Slate:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...osecuted_.html
“A true man, who is without fault, is not obliged to fly from an assailant, who by violence or surprise, maliciously seeks to take his life or do him enormous bodily harm.”

yeah, that's what happened here.

Zman was minding his own business being in a place where he had every right to be and Martin came out of nowhere, unprovoked, using his hands only, with a deadly attack trying to kill poor Zman who had no choice but draw his licensed weapon and fire on Martin and kill him, that was the only way for him to survive that horrible night that Zman wanted no parts of and Martin insisted on.

Otherwise, the article is a good article, explains a lot.

Last edited by kensteele; 03-19-2012 at 17:57..
kensteele is offline  
Old 03-19-2012, 17:53   #230
NMGlocker
BOOM headshot
 
NMGlocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 5,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by kensteele View Post
Again, not unlawful

I don't think it amounts to unlawful,

Nothing unlawful.
Yet you keep inferring that his lawful actions should place him in legal jeopardy.
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
NMGlocker is offline  
Old 03-19-2012, 17:55   #231
cgjane
Senior Member
 
cgjane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Miami
Posts: 539
And for those who believe in our right to bear arms, idiots like ZMan are the most significant threats to those rights.
__________________
"To a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
cgjane is offline  
Old 03-19-2012, 18:01   #232
jack76590
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,146
I am beginning to wonder if there is not a video tape of the incident in police hands. If so the police may be waiting for all the stories to come out before releasing video tape.
jack76590 is offline  
Old 03-19-2012, 18:03   #233
kensteele
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Leawood, KS
Posts: 7,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by NMGlocker View Post
Yet you keep inferring that his lawful actions should place him in legal jeopardy.
When I saw unlawful, I meant there are no criminal charges expected to be brought for those specific actions. Those actions establish a pattern which points to: Zman was the aggressor and his hands are not clean (he's not an innocent party) and he doesn't deserve the protection of "self-defense."

Sorry I used the word "unlawful" so many times it thru you off. I should have only used it once. However, I just wanted to be clear that those things people are pointing out doesn't make him the criminal (not following instruction for example), it's the other things (firing his weapon; depriving Martin of his civil rights).
kensteele is offline  
Old 03-19-2012, 18:11   #234
kensteele
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Leawood, KS
Posts: 7,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by jack76590 View Post
I am beginning to wonder if there is not a video tape of the incident in police hands. If so the police may be waiting for all the stories to come out before releasing video tape.
Somehow I don't think that is the proper process. Producing a video tape at the last minute would seem quite disingenous and unfortunately would probably cause even more of a ruckus.

If they had one, they should have said they had one and it is under review, maybe not release it. If one appears now, the community will suggest it is manufactured (depending on what it shows). After all, the police did "indicate" that they didn't have much evidence and was depending on the shooter's statement. The video tape can't tell the whole story.

Don't you think a video tape is supposed to be shown in court on behalf of your defense? How else can Martin impeach that video tape's "story" if you don't let it go to trial as evidence?
kensteele is offline  
Old 03-19-2012, 18:34   #235
jack76590
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by kensteele View Post
Somehow I don't think that is the proper process. Producing a video tape at the last minute would seem quite disingenous and unfortunately would probably cause even more of a ruckus.

If they had one, they should have said they had one and it is under review, maybe not release it. If one appears now, the community will suggest it is manufactured (depending on what it shows). After all, the police did "indicate" that they didn't have much evidence and was depending on the shooter's statement. The video tape can't tell the whole story.

Don't you think a video tape is supposed to be shown in court on behalf of your defense? How else can Martin impeach that video tape's "story" if you don't let it go to trial as evidence?
If and very big If, a video tape was in police hands they would use it at some point and it would certainly come out at any trial.

However, if you release a video immediately, people who may wish to make up false stories or testimony then would not make stories up that could be refuted by the video. They would instead make up false stories that took video in account. By holding video back the police may be able to refute some false claims and stories at a later date.

Not saying a video is out there, but with all the cell phone cameras on the street you never know.

Last edited by jack76590; 03-19-2012 at 18:36..
jack76590 is offline  
Old 03-19-2012, 19:08   #236
kensteele
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Leawood, KS
Posts: 7,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by jack76590 View Post
If and very big If, a video tape was in police hands they would use it at some point and it would certainly come out at any trial.

However, if you release a video immediately, people who may wish to make up false stories or testimony then would not make stories up that could be refuted by the video. They would instead make up false stories that took video in account. By holding video back the police may be able to refute some false claims and stories at a later date.

Not saying a video is out there, but with all the cell phone cameras on the street you never know.
understood. as i said, the police could just say they have a video tape of the incident and not show the actual video to the police. that is acceptable if it is warranted. I believe the shooting took place several weeks ago.
kensteele is offline  
Old 03-19-2012, 19:34   #237
Bruce M
Senior Member
 
Bruce M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: S FL
Posts: 20,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by kensteele View Post
We don't know if the dispatch is a sworn officer or not. Apparently Zman dialed a non-911 number so we don't know who is on the other end of the call.

.... Why the call to a non-911 number this time, is that what happened? What was his intent? .. .

Initial appearances suggest that Seminole County handles Sanford's 911 calls. My guess is that he wanted to talk directly to Sanford PD - some think that it is faster to talk directly with the department that services their area. (However a non-911 call can present problems of no ALI, no ANI, and potential difficulty if the call is inadvertently disconnected or dropped.)
__________________
Bruce
I never talked to anyone who had to fire their gun who said "I wished I had the smaller gun and fewer rounds with me" Just because you find a hundred people who agree with you on the internet does not mean you're right.
Bruce M is offline  
Old 03-19-2012, 19:36   #238
kensteele
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Leawood, KS
Posts: 7,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by kensteele View Post
Same with the shots. People may have claimed what they heard but that doesn't change the facts. I only heard one shot on the tape I listened to but what was that other sound? And for a semi-auto handgun, how do you tell for sure it only fired once?

Sadly, we'll have to wait a little longer for the official release and in the meantime, tension builds and rumors circulate and fiction becomes fact as this news spreads across America, thru the liberal media of course.

To you and I, a warning shot is bad news for zman. For the community, a warning shot is akin to trying to make an arrest or stop someone from fleeing. Right or wrong, the state making the final call and the final interpretation will ultimately leave half satisfied and half unsatisfied. the only people contributing to the evidence is the police and zman. when does the dead man get to speak?
^couple of days ago i said this, now this story breaks:

"Police found a single shell casing at the scene, and when they seized George Zimmerman's handgun, a Kel Tel 9 mm, its magazine was full, according to a source close to the investigation. The only bullet missing was the one in the chamber, the source said." article

Bad reporting, who can see the problem(s) with this statement? All kinds of issues with understanding what this means exactly.* We'll still have to wait to see the actual evidence but as I said earlier, I don't think one shot or two shots is important; he's still in trouble even with just the one shot.

*How do you have a full magazine when you fire one round in a semi-auto handgun*What is a full magazine, when loaded to marked capacity or physically loaded with as many as can be jammed in*Of course the round originally in the chamber is always missing, did the next round not chamber*Did the gun jam*How many shell casings were not found by police*Did Zman operate his weapon before police seized it and after he shot it*Find any rounds in his pockets or in his car*Does Zman carry with a round in the chamber*
kensteele is offline  
Old 03-19-2012, 19:51   #239
NMGlocker
BOOM headshot
 
NMGlocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 5,927
If it was a contact shot or done while wrestling the gun could have fired yet not completed the entire function cycle.
If the magazine release was pressed during the struggle that could cause a round to eject yet not pick up a round from the magazine.
That could also be evidence that the two men were fighting over the pistol.
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
NMGlocker is offline  
Old 03-19-2012, 19:55   #240
ATW525
Senior Member
 
ATW525's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 358
Less edited version of Zimmerman's call:

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/GRA...z/-/index.html

Sizable parts of the conversation were edited out of the ones i posted earlier. Why did he want the officer to call him when he got there? Because he didn't know the address where he was. He mentions being in a "passthrough"... is it possible he's already in the location between the houses where the fatal confrontation occurs? He also mentions not wanting to give out his address because he's afraid Martin is nearby... is it possible he ran into Martin while walking back out to the road to get the address?

Presumably the other 911 calls are in the same video (it's over 34 minutes in length). I don't have time to listen all the way through right now, though.
ATW525 is offline  
Old 03-19-2012, 21:55   #241
kensteele
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Leawood, KS
Posts: 7,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATW525 View Post
Less edited version of Zimmerman's call:

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/GRA...z/-/index.html

Sizable parts of the conversation were edited out of the ones i posted earlier. Why did he want the officer to call him when he got there? Because he didn't know the address where he was. He mentions being in a "passthrough"... is it possible he's already in the location between the houses where the fatal confrontation occurs? He also mentions not wanting to give out his address because he's afraid Martin is nearby... is it possible he ran into Martin while walking back out to the road to get the address?

Presumably the other 911 calls are in the same video (it's over 34 minutes in length). I don't have time to listen all the way through right now, though.
that's not what i got from the audio starting around 02:50. the dispatcher said meet the officers by the mailboxes and zman said yes that's fine. he's not really focused and during part of the conversation he said "....i don't know where this kid is" meaning (to me) he is still actively searching for the kid. then he said "acutally could you have them [police] call me and i'll tell them where i'm at" which means to me, he doesn't know where he'll be when the police arrive. the piece of the conversation about the passthru and not knowning his current location (address) i don't see how that is relevant. again, the way i understand the conversation, zman does not want to rendevous with the police at the mailbox as he agreed to (he knows exactly where the mailboxes are located) but instead he would rather police arrive, call, and ask "where are you?" because zman doesn't know exactly where the chase will take him. meeting at the mailbox will cause him to break off the chase and zman will not break it off because "they always get away." zman forced this confrontation, he made sure it happened. you follow someone forever and then they finally turn to make contact with you, can't see how you claim you were attacked.

....and then to yell and scream help! help! help! and then the moaning and then YOU fire the fatal gunshot?

At 21:19 one of the callers says "...I just heard people saying Help Me ! Help Me! and this person shot him...." something like that. But she said it was dark and she says she doesn't want to be a witness, so the police probably dismissed it. She also said "Why would this man shoot him?" 10 feet outside her window. She didn't say "This man shot his attacker." She also said they were "talking" just prior to the wrestling and the shot, wonder what was said. She's very emotional. Seems to me she is implying the victim was asking for help. She also said there were other people that were 3 feet away from the scene. But of course, we don't know what they told the police.

Finally another witness around 32:50 listen to the description and see if you can make out who was screaming. He said he "saw a man laying on the ground screaming for help." He also said he heard a loud bang and then the screaming stopped. Something tells me (and I don't know this for sure), two men were not on top of each other rolling around when a shot went off. Same witness said he did not see the person who had to gun (sort of because it was a two part question). According to the witness the man he saw on the ground screaming did not have a gun. Go figure. Sorry, I listened to it quickly, it's late, the investigations will listen to this over and over so they get it right.
kensteele is offline  
Old 03-19-2012, 23:23   #242
High Altitude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 2,045
Do we know conclusively who was screaming for help?
High Altitude is offline  
Old 03-19-2012, 23:33   #243
Tiro Fijo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 5,003
The people who really know the probable answer aren't being heard as they know what type of person the deceased was. You & I don't. Was he a thug wannabe? Hot headed? Was he an honors student?

I say this as I lived in a city where an incident similar to this happened and I knew the deceased. He was a total POS but from the TV interviews and the newspaper after the incident you would have thought he rescued babies from burning buildings.

We don't have all the facts.

Last edited by Tiro Fijo; 03-19-2012 at 23:36..
Tiro Fijo is offline  
Old 03-20-2012, 04:09   #244
Misty02
Senior Member
 
Misty02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by G30Mike View Post
I didn't hear the dispatcher give him any "orders", he basically advised Zman that "We don't need you to do that"(follow him). Zman just said "Okay".
I'm not saying he was right in following the kid, I sure as hell wouldn't have, but he wasn't "ordered" to stop.
I'm sure because of the public outcry, there will be a more in depth investigation, as there should be IMO. None of us knows exactly what happened, but if he was stupid enough to play wannabe cop, then he's stupid enough to lie and fabricate a story to try and save his own ass.
If it was in fact a physical altercation that led to an attempted gun grab, then it sounds pretty justified to me. Someone attempts to grab my gun, it may have the exact outcome that this case had. But I know I don't want to play hero and follow someone I think may be up to no good and put myself in that situation to begin with.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.....
Again, playing both sides because I don’t have enough information, until I do, I make certain assumptions to see how a reasonable person could have reacted. Even if we’re talking about a gun-grab by Martin, what would you do if you were a 17 year old kid being followed by an adult male unknown to you and at some point you become aware he is armed? Martin can’t read Zimmerman’s mind, he doesn’t know why he is following him, he doesn’t know what his intentions are.

.
__________________


"In making tactical dispositions, the highest pitch you can attain is to conceal them." - Sun Tzu

Outpost Member #69
Misty02 is offline  
Old 03-20-2012, 04:17   #245
Misty02
Senior Member
 
Misty02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by kensteele View Post
At this point, we do not know if Zman had drugs or alcohol in his body. Rumor has it the police didn't bother to collect it. It's likely that Zman declined. Either way, it's critical to know if he was under the influence. But it is possible we may never ever know and [experts] are saying Zman sounds under the influence; if this goes to trial, that portion will be weakened by only listening to the tapes and trying to explain his actions rather than reviewing the test results. Martin will submit to a blood test and his results will be available.

Chased is the word I use. I'm going easy on him. Expect to hear words like stalked and hunted.
Is it really critical to know that when the law clearly states that it is not? If it is proven he was acting in self-defense his level of intoxication would be irrelevant.


790.151 Using firearm while under the influence of alcoholic beverages, chemical substances, or controlled substances; penalties


1) As used in ss. 790.151-790.157, to “use a firearm” means to discharge a firearm or to have a firearm readily accessible for immediate discharge.


(2) For the purposes of this section, “readily accessible for immediate discharge” means loaded and in a person’s hand.


(3) It is unlawful and punishable as provided in subsection (4) for any person who is under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substance set forth in s. 877.111, or any substance controlled under chapter 893, when affected to the extent that his or her normal faculties are impaired, to use a firearm in this state.


(4) Any person who violates subsection (3) commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(5) This section does not apply to persons exercising lawful self-defense or defense of one’s property.



.
__________________


"In making tactical dispositions, the highest pitch you can attain is to conceal them." - Sun Tzu

Outpost Member #69
Misty02 is offline  
Old 03-20-2012, 05:27   #246
Misty02
Senior Member
 
Misty02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by kensteele View Post
I don't condemn him, I want him to stand trial. I want to know all the evidence and the facts, I want to know what is currently being hidden from me. but you know like i know that standing trial amounts to a guilty verdict so i guess in a way you are correct. Noboby on the planet will overlook this travesty or buy his lame story so i guess the government needs to do whatever they can to keep this out of court.
In order to stand trial a person must be charged with a crime. The police have stated there is no evidence to prove Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense. Is what “we want” so important that we would demand a person be charged and have to stand trial even when there is no evidence a crime was committed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kensteele View Post
Sorry, I meant his claim to self-defense. Zman claiming he shot Martin to save his own life, to save himself from certain death is bogus.

His story is allegedly; Zman says: "if I had not fired my weapon and shot Martin in the chest, I would be dead for sure."

Who would believe that?

IMO
I believe I posted the statute earlier, just in case: 776.012 Use of force in defense of person

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

What was going on at the time? Was the injury to the back of his head serious? Could a person in that situation believed he was preventing imminent great bodily harm? After a blow to the head, could a person believe they are in danger of great bodily harm or even death? If you know you are armed does the thought of that firearm being used against you come to play in the equation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kensteele View Post
When I saw unlawful, I meant there are no criminal charges expected to be brought for those specific actions. Those actions establish a pattern which points to: Zman was the aggressor and his hands are not clean (he's not an innocent party) and he doesn't deserve the protection of "self-defense."

Sorry I used the word "unlawful" so many times it thru you off. I should have only used it once. However, I just wanted to be clear that those things people are pointing out doesn't make him the criminal (not following instruction for example), it's the other things (firing his weapon; depriving Martin of his civil rights).
That could very well be the case here. Still the state needs evidence he didn’t act in self-defense in order to charge, arrest and have him stand trial. Although, their hand may be forced to do so even in spite lacking such evidence in order to appease everyone. Think of the precedence that would set for other self-defense cases with stand your ground type laws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiro Fijo View Post
The people who really know the probable answer aren't being heard as they know what type of person the deceased was. You & I don't. Was he a thug wannabe? Hot headed? Was he an honors student?

I say this as I lived in a city where an incident similar to this happened and I knew the deceased. He was a total POS but from the TV interviews and the newspaper after the incident you would have thought he rescued babies from burning buildings.

We don't have all the facts.
I don’t know any of the characters in this story. From what has been printed Martin had a clean record and described by one of his teachers as an A and B student. From what I read in Facebook page while it was up (not very familiar with it so unable to tell if it was locked, deleted, made private, etc) the people he associated with were not vengeful people looking for revenge or anything of the sort, quite the contrary, the posts I read were remembering the good times they shared, how he now was in a better place along with comments about spending time with God now. If we are to judge people by the company they keep, I would venture and guess that Martin was not a bad kid.

He may; however, have reacted negatively to a stranger following him. While acting in self-defense he may have acted in a way Zimmerman viewed as an attack.

It is really not that difficult to place ourselves in each of their places and see how one (or both) believed, at the time of the struggle/ fight/ physical confrontation, they were acting in self-defense while the other believed they were being attacked.

I still believe Zimmerman should have not gotten out of his vehicle and followed. Absent that part, none of this would have taken place. I also cannot say that leaving his vehicle or even following was an illegal act, just one I am willing to bet Zimmerman wishes he could do over, with a different decision.


.
__________________


"In making tactical dispositions, the highest pitch you can attain is to conceal them." - Sun Tzu

Outpost Member #69
Misty02 is offline  
Old 03-20-2012, 06:46   #247
kensteele
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Leawood, KS
Posts: 7,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misty02 View Post
Is it really critical to know that when the law clearly states that it is not? If it is proven he was acting in self-defense his level of intoxication would be irrelevant.


790.151 Using firearm while under the influence of alcoholic beverages, chemical substances, or controlled substances; penalties


1) As used in ss. 790.151-790.157, to “use a firearm” means to discharge a firearm or to have a firearm readily accessible for immediate discharge.


(2) For the purposes of this section, “readily accessible for immediate discharge” means loaded and in a person’s hand.


(3) It is unlawful and punishable as provided in subsection (4) for any person who is under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substance set forth in s. 877.111, or any substance controlled under chapter 893, when affected to the extent that his or her normal faculties are impaired, to use a firearm in this state.


(4) Any person who violates subsection (3) commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(5) This section does not apply to persons exercising lawful self-defense or defense of one’s property.



.
didn't know that, it appears at first glance this section allow the intoxicated person to not lose their self-defense privileges just because they are under the influence.

whether or not zman was under the influence would help to better understand his state of mind or properly characterise his intentions, guage his reactions, clarify his [lack of] judgment. not sure about this but i heard the pd failed to obtain the blood test even though it is required procedure but again, i don't think their procedure override a person's refusal. if the police didn't collect, we'll probably never know. and despite this statute, i think a jury should be able to consider that evidence in detemining if his claim of self-defense is indeed valid.

ianal so i can't say this for sure but this section appears to suggest there is no crime in committed "using a gun while intoxicated" if you qualify for self-defense. iow, if someone is found ng by reason of self-defense, don't punish them with using a gun while intoxicated charges because the law says they are exempt from that. i'm not sure your claims the shooting was self-defense (which almost all shooter will do) will exempt you from tests or make them unnecessary.

if this is proven in court to self-defense, the tests will not help the prosecution. however, the test results could have possibly helped the prosecution prove this was not a self-defense shooting. big if, but if the police let him go without getting everything, could make it difficult to build a case. luckily the jury is not stupid and will make the right decision.
kensteele is offline  
Old 03-20-2012, 07:03   #248
kensteele
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Leawood, KS
Posts: 7,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misty02 View Post
In order to stand trial a person must be charged with a crime. The police have stated there is no evidence to prove Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense. Is what “we want” so important that we would demand a person be charged and have to stand trial even when there is no evidence a crime was committed?



I believe I posted the statute earlier, just in case: 776.012 Use of force in defense of person

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

What was going on at the time? Was the injury to the back of his head serious? Could a person in that situation believed he was preventing imminent great bodily harm? After a blow to the head, could a person believe they are in danger of great bodily harm or even death? If you know you are armed does the thought of that firearm being used against you come to play in the equation?



That could very well be the case here. Still the state needs evidence he didn’t act in self-defense in order to charge, arrest and have him stand trial. Although, their hand may be forced to do so even in spite lacking such evidence in order to appease everyone. Think of the precedence that would set for other self-defense cases with stand your ground type laws.


I don’t know any of the characters in this story. From what has been printed Martin had a clean record and described by one of his teachers as an A and B student. From what I read in Facebook page while it was up (not very familiar with it so unable to tell if it was locked, deleted, made private, etc) the people he associated with were not vengeful people looking for revenge or anything of the sort, quite the contrary, the posts I read were remembering the good times they shared, how he now was in a better place along with comments about spending time with God now. If we are to judge people by the company they keep, I would venture and guess that Martin was not a bad kid.

He may; however, have reacted negatively to a stranger following him. While acting in self-defense he may have acted in a way Zimmerman viewed as an attack.

It is really not that difficult to place ourselves in each of their places and see how one (or both) believed, at the time of the struggle/ fight/ physical confrontation, they were acting in self-defense while the other believed they were being attacked.

I still believe Zimmerman should have not gotten out of his vehicle and followed. Absent that part, none of this would have taken place. I also cannot say that leaving his vehicle or even following was an illegal act, just one I am willing to bet Zimmerman wishes he could do over, with a different decision.


.
I don't think the police said there is no evidence.

I think the police said they don't have enough evidence.

The community would like the police to develop and work this case and pull together the pieces to results in charges. Can they do that please?

Instead of "taking his word for it", study and analyse the clues, pull together your thoeries based on years of experience, come to your own conclusions, go ahead and present what ithe facts. if it were cloudy to the community, i can see it maybe being cloudy to the police. But to millions, it's all too clear. It's baffling why the police can't see it. Perhaps the police have evidence we don't know about. None of their statements seem to suggest they do but it might be a good idea of make sure it is solid (and not simply "we can't figure this one out" or "we got nothing") because it will need to be rock solid and airtight and uber-conclusive if you expect the country to buy it. A finding of we don't see any evidence of a crime so we won't be going forward is going to be toxic. the benefit of the doubt goes to the person who took the bullet. zman can get his benefit of the doubt in court.
kensteele is offline  
Old 03-20-2012, 07:07   #249
Gallium
CLM Number 182
Charter Lifetime Member
 
Gallium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 47,557


Quote:
Originally Posted by Misty02 View Post
If it is proven he was acting in self-defense his level of intoxication would be irrelevant.
...
I assume you mean "level of impairment" or if there was any alcohol in his blood - which is very different from what you have written (quoted above).

Initial news reports that outlined the breaking story indicate that Mr. Zimmerman was the driver of his SUV while he was following the deceased. Has this changed?

Consequently, yes, it would be very irrelevant to discuss his "level of intoxication", since it is already illegal to operate a motor vehicle in Florida on public roadways if intoxicated.


-G
Gallium is offline  
Old 03-20-2012, 07:16   #250
noway
Senior Member
 
noway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Davie "Cowboy" , FL
Posts: 19,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gallium View Post
Consequently, yes, it would be very irrelevant to discuss his "level of intoxication", since it is already illegal to operate a motor vehicle in Florida on public roadways if intoxicated.


-G
oh really , what the law on that? care to explain ? I think DUI cases typically have some limits and just having alcohol in your system is against the law.


back on the shooting,

We will find out more as the police release more information in the case. The investigation is still active, but with the media, locals, and non-locals outrage. I think some charges will be presented and the state will prosecute.

Even if zimmerman wins, it will cost him a lot.

When I operated on a neighborhood watch ( Boca Raton ), our local police, instructed us NOT to do the job or try to do the job of the police, unless some one life was in immediate danger.

So unless Martin was robbing a resident, shooting an AK47 or breaking down some one door, Zimmerman had no authority to engage.

In this case Zimmerman would have been wise to follow that direction/suggestion that my local PD gave us. A watch means just that, watching and reporting .

Btw he ( Zimmerman ) had no authority to detain, follow, request ID , stop the teen, investigate or any of the other silly item brought up in the course of the 10pages of this thread.

One bad decision, has create havoc in the town of Sanford.
noway is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:42.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 774
159 Members
615 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42