The Murder of Trayvon Martin
 

The 911 call (gets an interesting comment around the 2:21 mark)

So by now most of you have heard about how George Zimmerman, a Neighborhood watch volunteer, shot an unarmed black teen to death last month. He outweighed the boy by nearly 100 lbs, has a history of frequent calls to 911, and was told by the officers to let them handle it.

This reminds me of the case of Joe Horn in Texas back in 2007, in which another citizen took matters into his own hands after being told by 911 to let the cops handle it and 2 people were killed, in which Mr Horn subsequently walked.

Dr. Phil in a post, brought up both last night.

When I heard about this, the Horn case is the first reference point I thought of.

What do the rest of you think?

I think personally, this guy should be tried and jailed. He clearly went after this kid to do harm after being explicilty told not to and shot him for what reason???

Ugh, people like this makes me sick.


"Facts" about the case so far.

Such a sad case compounded by the dumbest laws in our union. What a cowardly man hiding behind those laws claiming self defense. SMH

I think that all the time spent demanding Zimmerman's arrest would be better spent demanding changes to the Florida law. There's really no good reason to arrest and try someone who has the law on his side.

Sickening. :(

This happened in February, so when I saw the story resurface, I thought the same thing had happened again.

I wonder what happened to make this a hot news story one month later.

ETA: Looks like the 911 tapes were released on March 17.

It is hard to say from just this whether the incident was racially motivated, but he does have some kind of paranoia or anxiety that caused him to come out of his house with a weapon - but still make the argument that it was self defense? The frightening part is that without help, another incident like this could happen.

In a lot of places, it's fine to go virtually anywhere with your sidearm. In fact, in Oklahoma, we have open carry as of just recently.

There are a lot of folks invested in this case now on both sides with agendas which have nothing to do with Zimmerman or Martin. It doesn't look very good for Zimmerman now, but apparently the FBI is now investigating. It's probably best to wait until those findings are released before anyone makes this their cause du jour on either side.

What happened was that Trayvon's family refuse to let this be buried. The problem was that when police took him into custody, they pretty much took him at his word that this was a self defense issue and was content to more or less let it go since the Sanford police claimed that they had no grounds to arrest him.

I would certainly hope that the family would not let this be buried.

I was asking why Zimmerman wasn't arrested around the time that it happened. The reason that the masses are talking about it now, though, is because of the release of the tapes.

Cynically, I'd say that the cops believed the white man's claims of self-defense against a young black man, and without further evidence, there wasn't much of a case.

I'd say that after reviewing the evidence I've seen put forward by folks who are obviously pretty biased against Zimmerman, assuming those facts to be true and that there is nothing out there to mitigate them, it doesn't look great for him, although, he could still put on a reasonable enough criminal defense to get acquitted.

In the initial accounts - Zimmerman claimed he was at his truck in the street, and the young man attacked him. Later reports -witnesses said Zimmerman was inside the house and saw the young man outside and came out with his weapon. The 911 call confirms the second report.

To make the claim of self-defense (even in Texas), Zimmerman would have to have reasonable fear for his safety - which would mean the young man had to be coming into his house or have a weapon on Zimmerman's property (not on the street.) Clearly, that is not the case here, and he should be charged.

I read something about a "stand your ground" law in Florida, that made it sound like it would be VERY difficult to get a conviction.

From my limited knowledge of the Florida self-defense law, your interpretation isn't accurate. There is no duty to retreat and force can be met with force anywhere. Whether Zimmerman was on the street or in his house is irrelevant under the Florida law. It's just whether he had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm caused by Martin.

Bad laws produce bad results.

While police say that Zimmerman is white, his family says that he identifies as Hispanic. This doesn't necessarily matter, just a tidbit.



No matter what ethnicity he is, the entire incident is heartbreaking. The news played the tapes last night while I was cooking dinner. I usually try to avoid hearing these, but couldn't. After hearing that tape it is hard to believe the self defense argument. "Are you following him?" "yes" "we don't need you to do that." (my paraphrasing) Reading this article
really helped me understand the law. I feel like the law could easily be taken advantage of.

This is an example of another case like this. (I couldn't find the news article.) Yoshihiro Hattori was a Japanese exchange student that went to the wrong house for a party. The home owner became upset because the young man rang his doorbell several times and was speaking (to him) unintelligibly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori
In that case, unfortunately, the jury ruled that it was self-defense that the homeowner had a reasonable fear of this student that he believed to be drunk or high.

This is the statute in the Florida law that they are talking about http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/.../0776.013.html

It is clear from this that (in Florida) if someone is entering your property or dwelling you have the right to use deadly force if you feel threatened (unless they are your child, dependent, or leasee). This law goes on to include being at your vehicle - that you have the right to defend yourself and your vehicle. In the initial statement - Zimmerman said he was at his vehicle, but the other report said he was inside the house. If the later reports were that he came out of his house and into the street to confront Martin, then I think they may be able to make a case against Zimmerman.

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.

Zimmerman's story was apparently that he was attacked. He presented himself to the police with a bloody nose.

Ah. Hmmm. But my impression is that the 911 call doesn't support that story.

My guess is that the there will be a prosecution. At this point, it will be politically impossible not to charge him, I would think. Let the facts shake out as they will at trial.

The general answer is no, they are not. Every dispatcher I've come across/worked with has been non uniformed and without arrest authority.

There might be some instances in very rural areas that calling 911 would go directly to the local sheriff but that's probably not the case in suburban Orlando.

So, Geraldo Rivera's take is that the hoodie got Trayvon killed...isn't this the same argument people make about women getting raped because what she wore...she was asking for it?


Hmph, no Gerry...no

Absent a law against dueling, it would almost seem that this statute could be used to justify pistols and 10 paces at high noon.

Geraldo still relevant? I thought his credibility was gone after that treasurership fiasco.

I suspect, and hope, that federal law will kick in. I believe that this has been used before: violating Trayvon's civil rights.

And now, thanks to Geraldo, I have to rethink my rainy day wardrobe. I wear a black hoodie (sweatshirt) with a university insignia on it. Someone may mistake my white middle aged woman's face as a threat.

I understand what he's saying. No, he didn't deserve to die (and I suspect that Zimmerman would have found him "suspicious" in a 3-piece suit), but folks do need to be mindful of appearances if they don't want to be perceived a certain way.

Pretty much.

LOLOLOLOL!