17y/o Killed By Neighborhood Watch/CHL

[RottenApple]

Fair points.
Call from the truck. Stay in the truck. Meet the police where they say you are supposed to meet them.

From what has already been testified to (by prosecution witnesses, oddly enough), there wasn't anything wrong with Zimmerman's getting out of the truck to determine which way the suspicious person went.

Day 2 testimony of Wendy Dorival, Sanford Police Department, Neighborhood Watch Program:

West focused in on that comment, asking, “when you say the shouldn’t follow someone, you’re not saying that if you see someone suspicious that you can’t follow at a distance to gather information, are you? You don’t tell people that they can’t follow someone from a distance, do you?”

“That’s right,” Dorival agreed, she was not saying that, but rather that it was not a good idea to engage someone.

ETA: And based on Z's statements and the evidence so far, it was hardly Z's choice to engage Martin.

Day 2 testimony of Donald O’Brien, President Twin Lakes Home Owners Association:

He also recounted an interesting story about a particular robbery in the community. What made this burglary memorable to O’Brien was that he had actually gotten into a conversation with the soon-to-be-burglar only a short time before the crime occurred. The burglar–whom O’Brien described as a 17-year-old black man–chatted with O’Brien a while, and later was seen by some nearby construction workers leaving a townhouse later discovered to have been burgled.

A few days later, these same workers observed the same 17-year-old black man wandering through Twin Lakes again. They contacted the police, and the burglar was successfully arrested.

Then he made an astonishing statement, given that he was a State witness and given the State’s theory of the case.

The arrest was made possible, he said, because the construction workers followed the suspicious person from a distance. O’Brien was, he said, so pleased with the successful arrest that he had sent the workers a letter of commendation from the HOA.

Guess they were just stupid too. Or, perhaps just lucky that the guy they followed didn't turn around and attack them.

The point is that Zimmerman did nothing wrong (or stupid, foolish, etc) by following Martin from a distance. Maybe that's not what you would do. Ok. I'm totally cool with that. But it still doesn't mean Z did anything wrong, foolish, or stupid.

[fickman]

If you were following in such a manner that lets them get that close to you, methinks you were entirely too close. Should have never left the truck.

TM got out of sight and hid. At this point, GZ was no longer "following". Coming out of hiding, TM then ambushed and viciously attacked GZ who was legally occupying a piece of land that he's has a right to occupy.

This chain of events seems to be corroborated by even the state's witnesses, including TM's friend, although she didn't realize that she unintentionally told this story by explaining when TM suddenly got out of breath (running to get out of view) and then began whispering (hiding) before confronting GZ.

GZ may not have been wise, although I personally have no problems with his actions, but that's still not grounds for being attacked.

There was no crime committed until GZ was attacked and the sidewalk was used as a deadly weapon against him. Once this crime was committed, he defended himself with deadly force.

[baldeagle]

This comment at the Legal Insurrection blog strikes me as particularly important.

I posted this at the other link, to a person my former partners and colleagues would have shot Martin because they would be in fear of their lives.

—–

“I’m here to say, as a former detective, if this were a police officer on the ground, without any medium weapons like a taser but only his weapon as a tool, he could shoot Martin dead and it would be ruled a good shoot.

Why?

Because every police officer on the planet knows just how little it takes to be knocked unconscious, and your weapon taken to kill you with, and how easy it is to be killed from a single blow to your head or you head pounced off concrete.

Not to mention the permanent injuries like loss of vision or broken jaws.

The only difference is we are trained to keep shooting until the bad guy is stopped, Martin would have taken four or five round to the chest, which mean Zimmerman was using restraint.”

[texanjoker]

Tried not watching any, but did today. Having spent a lot of time in court over 20 plus years I can say that IMO Zimmerman's attorneys are doing a good job to show reasonable doubt. They were not confrontational and very methodical to get the statements they needed clarified. The officer testifying that he took Zimmerman into custody at gun point did a great job. He clearly articulated it was normal procedure, it was dark and you needed a flashlight to see. That is crucial to dispute the witnesses that claimed the deceased was on the bottom. The MMA statements were great, and the fact that witness was consistent since day one is even better.

I do wonder though, where is the uproar for the police taking Zimmerman into custody at gun point? I mean shouldn't they have known he was just a CHL holding neighborhood watch citizen and disregarded basic officer safety practices ?

[Dadtodabone]

Tried not watching any, but did today. Having spent a lot of time in court over 20 plus years I can say that IMO Zimmerman's attorneys are doing a good job to show reasonable doubt. They were not confrontational and very methodical to get the statements they needed clarified. The officer testifying that he took Zimmerman into custody at gun point did a great job. He clearly articulated it was normal procedure, it was dark and you needed a flashlight to see. That is crucial to dispute the witnesses that claimed the deceased was on the bottom. The MMA statements were great, and the fact that witness was consistent since day one is even better.

I do wonder though, where is the uproar for the police taking Zimmerman into custody at gun point? I mean shouldn't they have known he was just a CHL holding neighborhood watch citizen and disregarded basic officer safety practices ?

[philip964]

The counterpoint people on Fox are really fervent in their belief that Zimmerman committed murder. Fervent. I suspect when the not guilty verdict is read, there will be trouble.

Basically the counterpoint people believe the following events took place:

Zimmerman was stalking Martin at night. Martin was upset about it and thought he would be attacked. The police told Zimmerman to not follow Martin, but he continued to do so, which they feel is a crime. Martin then confronted Zimmerman about being followed and defended himself. Zimmerman then shot him.

If I was the prosecution I would have handled the case completely differently. I would have spent days and days proving what we already know. Zimmerman shot Martin. Ballistics, graphic photos of wounds, lots of Doctor testimony about how he died. Bring the gun to the courtroom show it off in a plastic bag. Have police officers say "that is the gun Zimmerman had in his hand" etc. Then after you have all the ladies recoiling from the violence of what Zimmerman did, dance through the narrative above.

But to me it is unimportant that Zimmerman followed anyone or what the dispatcher said. (she did not say don't follow him, she said we don't need you to do that, completely different, one is a command the other is not) Or even who threw the first punch.

What is important is that Zimmerman was on the ground being beaten in to death, by someone sitting on top of him and at his last lucid moment, he defended his life with his gun.

To me, when someone is on the ground and you are still hitting or kicking them while they are on the ground, unless you are defending your family or your property or the person you are fighting will not release a weapon, you stop as your now being the bad guy and if you get shot, well you had it coming.

[Pacifist]

Tried not watching any, but did today. Having spent a lot of time in court over 20 plus years I can say that IMO Zimmerman's attorneys are doing a good job to show reasonable doubt. They were not confrontational and very methodical to get the statements they needed clarified. The officer testifying that he took Zimmerman into custody at gun point did a great job. He clearly articulated it was normal procedure, it was dark and you needed a flashlight to see. That is crucial to dispute the witnesses that claimed the deceased was on the bottom. The MMA statements were great, and the fact that witness was consistent since day one is even better.

I've watched many hours of the trial this week (and in the process, gotten very little work done), and one thing that is abundantly obvious is that if you didn't know that the witnesses were supposed to be prosecution witnesses, you'd bet money that they were called by the defense.

I do wonder though, where is the uproar for the police taking Zimmerman into custody at gun point? I mean shouldn't they have known he was just a CHL holding neighborhood watch citizen and disregarded basic officer safety practices ?

The uproar will come when it's made public that one Sanford officer returned to Zimmerman's condo and shot his dog.

[baldeagle]

But to me it is unimportant that .... *snip* Or even who threw the first punch.

What is important is that Zimmerman was on the ground being beaten in to death, by someone sitting on top of him and at his last lucid moment, he defended his life with his gun.

I respectfully disagree. You can't simply throw the first punch and initiate a fight - and then, when you're getting your head handed to you in response, shoot someone and easily claim self-defense.

It may be possible in *some* odd turn of circumstance, but it would be a very long shot indeed.

Under Florida law, that is incorrect.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) 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; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Neither is it true under Texas law.

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor;

In all cases CHL holders should never seek to provoke a confrontation. However, should you do so, you still have the right of self defense if your life is threatened. I would think you would be much more likely to go to trial in those circumstances, however, simply because many people think the way Andy does - if you start it you have to take it.

[bizarrenormality]

So if Z is acquitted, should we be concerned about riot situations in Texas?

Don't start none and there won't be none.

[bizarrenormality]

From a the perspective of non-LEO civilian tactics, I don't disagree. But from a legal perspective, what law did GZ break by exiting his vehicle? And how does this all add up to 2nd-degree murder, manslaughter, or even jaywalking?

He's a White Hispanic so he must be guilty of something, according to collectivist dogma

[RottenApple]

He's a White Hispanic so he must be guilty of something, according to collectivist dogma

You know, I'm still confused over the whole "white/Hispanic" thing. Well TBH, I'm confused over he whole racial thing. I grew up in the military (Air Force, to be specific). My dad's CO could have been white, black, Hispanic, Asian, female, etc. at any point, at any station. WHY would someone of a different color, gender, religion be better or worse than we were, just because of said color, gender, or religion????? I honestly do not get it.

[Dave2]

Does anyone know how long this trial is expected to run?

[sjfcontrol]

Does anyone know how long this trial is expected to run?

I heard (somewhere) a couple of weeks. Hopefully somewhat short of OJ's 8-month trial.

I suspect that the prosecution is winding down, as we seem to have covered almost ALL the neighbors, along with all the technical details (police, EMTs, 911 operators, doctors, etc.). Not that I'm any kind of expert, but I don't see the defense going anywhere as long. In fact, as I said earlier, I think they could rest without calling any witnesses if they wanted to.

[RottenApple]

Does anyone know how long this trial is expected to run?

Until the race baiters get what they want.......