NBC Miami

Florida's state attorney said Tuesday a grand jury would investigate the death of an unarmed black teen by a local neighborhood watch captain. Hours earlier the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced probes into the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, who was walking home Feb. 26 when he fatally shot by George Zimmerman.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...rney-announces

Question for the attorneys:

Are police dispatchers (9-1-1 call receivers) generally considered law enforcement officers? are callers obliged to follow their directives? if so, under what conditions?

The kid was on his cellphone with a female friend. He said that a strange man was following him. Zimmerman hunted this kid down and shot him. He's a dangerous nut, maybe a racist, and needs to be put away.

More here: http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/feds-fla-probe-teen-s-shooting-by-watch-captain-1.3613683

Answers will vary wildly by jurisdiction. Like, possibly town-to-town.

One of the articles I read stated that the dispatchers give recommendations and not mandates.

His family probably knows that being Hispanic does not prevent someone from being white. However, Zimmerman may identify as mulatto/mestizo Hispanic. His last name and perhaps his voice may have led police to think he was non-Hispanic white. Or, Zimmerman may identify as white Hispanic until people accuse him of racial profiling. Who knows.

This matters because (race and ethnicity are not as invisible as people pretend that it is and) a whole lot about this situation would be different if Zimmerman was not assumed to be white. Interracial violence generally has different motivations and is responded to differently than intraracial violence.

I found out about this today. I also found out when this law was passed, they had 13 murders shortly after that. The question I have is who would even think of a law like this, and why would it be allowed to be passed?

A former student of mine is a reporter at The Miami Herald and recommended this:


"He expressed disappointment over the Seminole County state attorney’s office decision Tuesday to take the case before a grand jury, noting that because grand juries are private, no one will know whether a strong case was presented.
“They are passing the buck, so they can then say, ‘it wasn’t us, it was the community.’”
Crump’s news conference came shortly after Seminole State Attorney Norm Wolfinger announced that a grand jury will look into Martin’s death."

If he truly felt his life was in jeopardy - and the assailant had opportunity and ability to cause his death - then he would be justified in using deadly force...no matter where he was at the time. But this kid was not armed, the two men seemed to be about the same size, so AT BEST it's debatable whether the use of deadly force would even be justifiable if the assailant did come at him. Add to it that by his own admission in the 911 calls that HE was the one pursuing the kid, I think self-defense should go out the window. There is a difference in "standing your ground" and being the aggressor. Zimmerman was a vigilante who was pissed off and wanted to tell this kid all about it. Deep inside, he was probably a coward who thinks a gun makes him a tough guy, yet all it took was for the kid to turn around and look at him for him to completely lose it and freak out.

Oh, and plenty of states have generous concealed and open carry laws, even some "blue" states such as my state of Washington. If it's legal, there's nothing wrong with someone carrying a gun with them when they go outside to investigate a suspicious noise/person. But with gun ownership comes great responsibility to know what the consequences are of using it.

to the lawyers in the room : Does his comment of 'f**king coon' on the 911 tape become part of the evidence that this could be a hate crime?

Point of order
 

“Unless authorities say pre-meditation was obvious, do not say that a victim was murdered until someone has been convicted in court,” the Stylebook entry for “homicide” reads. “Instead, say that a victim was ‘killed’ or ‘slain.’”
Dan Abrams, legal analyst for ABC News, said it’s understandable that people would use “murder” interchangeably with “killing and “homicide.”
“I think some advocates are intentionally using the word ‘murder’ because they believe this was a murder (pre-meditated or not) with the requisite intent. Fair enough. Analysts may make assessments about whether and why prosecutors ought to indict and on what charge. That is opinion. But those seeking objectivity should use the word ‘killing’ or ‘shooting,’ which is undisputed. Was it murder? Manslaughter? Self-defense? Those are thorny legal questions for prosecutors and ultimately a jury to decide.”


I will be very happy when we can refer to him as "accused murderer" once charges are filed.

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/m...-not-a-murder/

There was a march for Trayvon Martin at my campus this evening. I believe it was put together by the Delta Sigma Theta chapter. They even had the local film crews on site.

While many wait for the Feds to declare if this was a hate crime, justice is being served in another case in Mississippi.

That story just makes me want to cry.

My knowledge of Florida law is maybe more limited than yours, but if, as the 911 tape suggests, Zimmerman came out of his house to confront Martin, then it wouldn't seem that we're talking about a duty to retreat or meeting force with force. We're possibly talking about Zimmerman being the aggressor.

Possibly.