Posted on 04/10/2012 6:48:34 AM PDT by marktwain
A slew of questions have been raised in this investigation and calls for justice have been heard from all corners of our country. What's important is that we the citizens have the proper information to draw a conclusion about what actually happened that night. Everything else is pure speculation. I will attempt to do just that here with you, step by step.
The night started with a 911 call from Mr. Zimmerman about a suspicious looking person walking through the neighborhood. Mr. Martin was a guest in the neighborhood and was difficult to identify by familiarity. The 911 dispatcher asked for identifying characteristics of Mr. Martin to which Mr. Zimmerman replied a black male in jeans with a hooded sweat shirt. This brings us to our first question.
Was Mr. Zimmerman's identification of Mr. Martin as a black male an indication of pre-meditation in a hate crime, or otherwise a pre disposition to illustrate facts in any other matter then straight forwardly? It would stand to reason that the physical characteristics played little into how Mr. Zimmerman made his conclusion to involve the police. It was likely linked to the hyperbole surrounding the recent crime in the area and the zealotry Mr. Zimmerman experienced as the watch Captain.
As a result race was a non issue it was the relation to a body, be it white or black in the neighborhood "looking suspicious”. What's suspicious? That’s merely up to perception. Then could it have been a "Hate crime"? A hate crime is defined as such- "In crime and law, hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, sex, gender identity, social status or political affiliation."
Probably not considering the race of Mr. Martin was only called into question by the 911 operator and not freely given by Mr. Zimmerman; furthermore Mr. Zimmerman concluded "I think he's black". That degree of uncertainty can call into question any intent Mr. Zimmerman may or may not have had prior to engaging Mr. Martin. From there Mr. Zimmerman goes on to say "He's checking me out" "He's putting his hand in his waist band" "he's got something in his hand; I don't know what his deal is".
I think this is instrumental in fueling Mr. Zimmerman’s mindset. That coupled with the apparent frustration of "These assholes, they always get away". The next question is- Why did Mr. Zimmerman pursue Mr. Martin and confront him? And was it considered stalking? After these events you can hear on the recording Mr. Zimmerman exiting his vehicle. He goes on to say "He's running" you then begin to hear wind and heavy breathing as if a pursuit has been initiated. The 911 operator asks "Are you following him"? To which Mr. Zimmerman replies "Yes" the operator says "Ok we don't need you to do that". There are two very important points to take away from this as there seems to be some confusion here.
First, the "Command" was merely a suggestion as phrased by the 911 operator. Secondly the suggestion as it were was from a telecommunications operator NOT a police officer with any authority over what Mr. Zimmerman does. Mr. Zimmerman replied to the operator after the suggestion to desist was given "ok". The sound of wind and heavy breathing then ended. He then went over more details with the operator for approximately one minute and forty five seconds while returning to his truck. He states when the operator asks him for his home address "I don't want to give that out I don't know where this guy is".
The call is ended shortly afterward when Mr. Zimmerman agrees to meet the responding officer at his truck. In short this unequivocally proves he ended the pursuit as suggested by the operator, contrary to what the media has been reporting. As far as the stalking theory is concerned, Mr. Zimmerman was not guilty in his twenty second pursuit of Mr. Martin. Language in F.S 784.048 provides the legal definition of stalking. (2)Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Now these are all interesting points because it defines stalking as “Malicious, repeatedly and with harassment”. Mr. Zimmerman’s short winded pursuit of Mr. Martin was not malicious in intent, was not a repeated act and was not harassment as defined in Florida statute. Harassment is defined as such- (a)“Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose. Now what is considered as a course of conduct is a little ambiguous in Florida’s definition however is clearer in Federal language.
Florida statute- (b)“Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.” Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.
Federal law- (2) Course of conduct. - The term "course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of 2 or more acts, evidencing a continuity of purpose. So that should serve to further clarify the intent of the legislature when creating stalking laws, and what conduct actually consists of in relation to the act of stalking. What happened after the 911 call is shrouded in controversy and mystery; however one conclusion can be drawn.
The police apprehended Mr. Zimmerman after the shooting and took him in for questioning. What was found afterward with both physical evidence, testimony from Mr. Zimmerman and from two separate witnesses was that it was self defense. The idea that this must be some vast conspiracy with the denizens of the neighborhood and Sandford PD is not only ridiculous but offensive to the integrity of the very men and women who protect us day in and day out. Another assertion drawn from the masses is that the Stand Your Ground Law is a "License to kill" This couldn’t be further from the truth. The Florida legislature has built language and provisions into this law to prevent it being used maliciously. Below is the exact verbiage as it is stated on the Florida legislature's website. "776.013 (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." This is quite clear that the defendant must "Reasonably" believe that they must use deadly force if they believe such force is the only way to prevent great bodily harm or death to themselves." That being said I have a question for you. If someone assaulted you from behind, punched you in the face, then took you to the ground and pummeled your head repeatedly into a sidewalk would you reasonably believe that was "Imminent death or great bodily harm"?
If so would you be willing to do what it took to stop the commission of that crime and protect yourself with whatever means you had available to you? That is at the very core of the war being waged between both sides. Now a lot of the opponents to the Zimmerman defense story have said that because Mr. Zimmerman "Pursued and stalked" Mr. Martin that Mr. Martin then had the right to stand his ground and Mr. Zimmerman had then forfeited his right to self defense because he was the aggressor and that it was no longer a "Stand your ground" issue. Firstly I would like to quash the idea that we can take "Stand your ground" as literally as it has been portrayed.
The law has adopted the moniker "Stand your ground" because of the verbiage within it and the precedent it set. The true name if any can be given to this law is simply a number F.S 776.013 here I will show you the verbiage in its entirety from the legislature website. 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." "(3) From what is within that law it could be argued that whether a chase had occurred or not that Zimmerman had the right to be in any public place and so could stand his ground no matter where he was. Your personal space moves with you, and with it the area under which you can "Stand your ground". You will only be standing your ground when the situation comes to a halt and a assault occurs. That seems to be quite contradictory and has a gaping hole in it as it stands. That is why the legislature built in this beautiful provision for the justifiable use of force, which I believe fits in perfectly with this situation.
Arguments have been made that Zimmerman provoked the confrontation by following him which was of course disproven by the un- redacted version of the 911 tape that was not released initially to the media. Now! Even if it wasn't, and we were still under the assumption that Zimmerman was the aggressor this law shows how one could still fall under the stand your ground law legally. Use of force by aggressor.
The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who: "776.041 Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or (1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless: (2) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;" (a) If Martin assaulted Zimmerman after any pursuit was made Zimmerman could still use deadly force to end any assault that made him "Reasonably believe that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm". Right wrong or indifferent this is the law and its intent was to protect everyone legally so that just because you’re a hot head you wouldn’t have to die for it in fear of what would legally happen to you if you defended yourself. The next and to me the most disgusting portion of this debacle is the accusation that the police department "Failed" to arrest Zimmerman and that the investigation was botched. Here is a statute that will 100% remove any doubt of the conduct of the police department and their judgment that night.
A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant."
Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—(1) "776.032 With the evidence both physical and witness testimony it was proven that Zimmerman acted in self defense and so the Police had no probable cause to make the arrest. How can people cry for justice and in the same breath in ignorance of the law ask for circumvention in the law? Justice is defined as a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, or equity, along with the punishment of the breach of said ethics; justice is the act of being just and/or fair. There is nothing Rational about jumping to conclusions with sensational headlines, asking for justice via breaking a well founded law and asking for a punishment that is not warranted.
Talking with a friend of mine, he said something interesting.
He is connected to the local State Patrol.
In some places, 911 operators work under/have a commission from the local sheriff/state patrol.
SOMETIMES 911 warnings/direction DO CARRY THE FORCE OF LAW!
Just mentioning it because I don’t want fellow FReepers to automatically assume something a 911 operator says is “just a suggestion”. So people should check their local jurisdictions.
I may have to revise my terminology for a couple of fights I was in back in school. :)
And always bring a gun to to a gunfight.
There was no "initial questioning." The two exchanged no words till very shortly before things got physical.
I see no reason we should respond to liberal pre-judgment of this case by doing the same in reverse.
BTTT
What makes it confusing is a few seconds before, the same operator tells Zimmerman (twice) "Just let us know if he does anything else". Kind of hard to do if you don't have eyes on the suspect. Zimmerman followed directions.
I've only gotten to the first paragraph of "facts," and there are already 2 errors... good grief...
1)Zimmerman didn't call 911. He called the non-emergency police number.
2) Zimmerman did not volunteer that Trayvon was black. He was specifically asked if the guy was "white, black or Hispanic."
[[What’s important is that we the citizens have the proper information]]
Whaqt world are you living in? That’s NOT what is important- the ONLY thing important in this case is whether you are black or white- IF you arwe black, then Martin was just an innocent lkittle child goign to the storwe to get skittles, and the big mean ‘white’ george zimmerman was out on pastrol hoping to hunt down innocent little black kids because he was swo racist-
The black community does NOT care abotu hte FACVTS- PERIOD! They and the media are determiend to make htis abotu ‘justice ofr trayvon’ despite the fact that zimmerman ONLY shot him as a last resort in an effort to save hisw own life as trasyvon went for his gun.
None of hte FACTS matter to hte black community- George zimmernman in their mind visciously hunterd down Trayvon like an animal, and shot him in cold blood DESPITE ALL the FACTS to the contrary- they want this to be abotu raqce, and by damn, that’s exactly what this IS goign to be about!
Accordign to hte witrnesses, there was no fight, there was however a criminal assault on zimmerman by a thug kid, and according to witnesses an attempt by martin at murder- bashing someone’s head into concrete is intent to murder. I fully expect we’ll be hearing al sharpton and the press come out and condemn trayvon for attempting to murder zimmerman, any day now-
Who says? The undertaker? Or is the ME's report out?
Clearly, there was a fight. Over Zimmerman's gun. The fact that the spent round was still in the chamber indicates multiple hands were gripping it, preventing proper cycling and ejection of the cartridge.
Actually, Trayvon's girlfriend DeeDee apparently did hear the beginning of the fight. There are some of her comments here
She said that Trayvon said: "What are you following me for?" to which Zimmerman replied: "What are you doing around here?" and then she surmised that the headset fell, attributing it to Zimmerman attacking Trayvon. As far as I know, she did not publicly report hearing anything else after the headset fell.
It would appear that was the time that the physical altercation started. Does it make sense that Zimmerman would attack Trayvon at this point, or that Trayvon would attack Zimmerman? Remember, Zimmerman had the police coming. Zimmerman reported that he went for his phone. Perhaps Trayvon thought he was going for a weapon, and decided to go on the offensive.
Yeah, I've heard that one quite a bit. Ignored in the analysis is this question: How does a slightly pudgy middle-aged man chase down and assault a taller, wiry teenaged football player in the rain? Can't ever get an answer to that....
It only exposes the lunacy of their position. And they are completely blind to it. And they call you names if you even try to point it out.
And there are a LOT of them.
They only interacted once, not twice.
It appears Zimmerman took the police suggestion to drop his pursuit of Martin, had lost track of Martin, and was heading back to his truck when Martin accosted him, evidently royally pissed at having been 'profiled' and intent on messing up whitey.
Because Martin was black, Zimmerman was supposed to let him give him brain damage or kill him. That’s the Left’s argument. And teenagers can kill adults. It happens over and over.
She surmised, did she? Obviously, Trayvon terminated the call. If the headset had merely fallen, she would have been able to hear quite a lot. The shouting and the gunshot are audible on at least one of the 911 calls, which were over phones a lot further removed from the site.
Hopefully, T-Mobile has exact call times. Cell carriers keep their computer clocks dead accurate.
If it does not get to trial, I hope everyone is at a personal defcon2 status.
Standing by at DEFCON 3 for now, with REDCON 3 set. If there's an arrest of Zimmerman, we'll go to REDCON 2.
Defense readiness conditions (DEFCONs) describe progressive alert postures primarily for use between the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commanders of unified commands. DEFCONs are graduated to match situations of varying military severity, and are numbered 5,4,3,2, and 1 as appropriate. DEFCONs are phased increases in combat readiness. In general terms, these are descriptions of DEFCONs:
DEFCON 5 Normal peacetime readiness
DEFCON 4 Normal, increased intelligence and strengthened security measures
DEFCON 3 Increase in force readiness above normal readiness
DEFCON 2 Further Increase in force readiness, but less than maximum readiness
DEFCON 1 Maximum force readiness.
If this goes to trial, it will be either an acquital or a hung jury...then the SHTF big time, just as you suggest. I’d be at personal defcon2 status regardless.
You are correct. I find her testimony to be a bit suspect because she has not been identified and the Martin family attorney refuses to give her identity to anyone but federal investigators. Federal investigators from Eric Holder's justice department, who have already been on notice to give "his people" a pass.
I would very much like to be able to see and compare all the phone records for this case and compare the time lines. From what I can tell, there is at most a one minute gap where there are no phone records. It may be that the gap is entirely nonexistent.
Yes, she surmised. Here is what she said from the previous link: "Then somebody pushed Trayvon, because the headset just fell." That's the end of her comments in the ABC interview. Now, whether or not she heard more, or if the phone broke, or Trayvon terminated the call, that's not public knowledge as far as I know. The police should have the exact time that the call ended, so they are in a position to question her if the call continued.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.