Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Florida Teen murdered by


Copasetic

Recommended Posts

I agree aztek, Zimmerman was obviously being attacked. What we don't know is who initiated it.

All we have, really, is Zimmerman's account of the evening....Which actually line up pretty darn well with the evidence.

We'll have to see what the actual trial brings though.

..............and hopefully not influenced by the media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok let's start off by saying YES.. Police Dispatch IS law enforcement in the state of Florida.

I posted a link to a site where a Police Officer said they are Not. So, please post your own resource as to why you believe that the 911 operator IS law enforcement.

Because your whole arguement rests on Z pursuing M illegally.

He says "these *******s always get away", then illegally engages a fleeing victim, and when he is told to stop his pursuit he completely ignores the request. This demonstrates that he had no intention of letting him get away.

So even with your interpretation of Murder, it is clear there was malice aforethought. In the State of Florida, Murder is not defined that way and I clearly already quoted the law saying that it is defined differently.

I don't think wanting to prevent a suspected burgler from escaping is "Intent to Kill".

Actrually my definition of Murder matches EXACTLY with the definition of Murder In the First Degree in Florida law. What you are now going on about is Murder in the Second Degree....

Please post a quote where you "Clearly quoted the law"? I believe what you posted is "According to FSS 782, Zimmerman is Guilty of Murder.."

Here is what I found....

The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

http://law.justia.com/codes/florida/2005/TitleXLVI/ch0782.html

So you have failed to show imminent danger, and failed to show a depraved mindset, and failed to show disregard fore human life. So none of the conditions for Murder are met. M's girlfriend was talking to him right as the two met up. There was no sense of deadly danger, or depravity or disregard for life in her statements.

Now to the claim that they were talking, did you hear them talking? Nope.

The teen was walking, saw a man staring at him, came closer to see what was going on and for whatever reason, decided to flee.

The GF phone call confirms they spoke. Z was like "Who are you" and M was like "What do you want?". M did not say, "OMG he has a GUN!!!!".

So, my backed up claim is no good, but your grand claims of Murder for things YOU did not SEE is fine??

Clearly, you can hear where the teen is screaming for help.. HOW is someone screaming for help, half your size, unarmed a threat to your life or great bodily harm?

I thought the unofficial voice analysis was that they could not tell who was screaming. But, witnesses who were on the street and looking over their back yard fences all said the black fellow in a hoodie was on top and the guy on the bottom was screaming for him to stop. Are you calling all those witnesses Racist Liars?

He fired a single shot, while he could have shot at the victim's leg or arms, he decided that a single execution style shot that would instantly kill his victim was necessary.

Yes, because when your head is being slammed into the concrete sidewalk repeatedly and you are about to black out, the thing you really want to concentrate on is shooting the guy beating you to death in the leg or foot.

Idiotic statement!!!!

Now as for who threw the first punch, that is completely irrelevant information because the engagement started when Zimmerman acted out a threat to physically harm Martin by giving chase after Martin had turned his back and started fleeing.

It is totally relevant, because if Z was within his rights to Follow M, then M actually was the one in the wrong. Following someone quietly might be stalking, but it is not a threat of death.

When was Zimmerman's life in danger?

Maybe when his head was being smashed against the ground repeatedly and M was saying how he was going to kill him???

Those are the facts and according to the facts, Zimmerman is guilty of aggravated assault, aggravated battery, and MURDER of a minor.

Except you are only using the Facts as presented by extreme Bias. If you could see past the Red Rage of Bias you'd see that Z did not murder M. Was Z beyond his legal rights? Maybe. But did he Murder M? No. Probably he could be found guilty of some kind of Manslaughter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then under what legal authority did he fire his weapon taking the life of another?

That is actually the only law in the state of Florida that allows one to fire a weapon in a public area or within 1,000 ft. of civilization except in firing ranges.

........

Anyone else have an opinion about a vigilante that fired his weapon at someone not posing a threat?

He wasn't even a member of a crime watch, just a vigilante..

He murdered a minor, nuff said 'Merica.

So now bringing up History of an individual is OK?.....

I believe his defense is a Federal Self Defense Law.

What proof is there that Z confronted M. There is definately proof Z was following M, but none that he instigated the confrontation. It is just as likely that M initiated the confrontation. And Z did not corner M, they were on a sidewalk. One or the other would have had to have stood still for both to come together. If M stood still, then Z instigated the fight, and if M moved toward Z then He was the one turning the situation from a following situation to a confrontation.

Edited by DieChecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Semantic?

Trayvon Martin was 17 years old, 140lbs. (He was a kid legally according to his age)

George Zimmerman was 28 years old, 240lbs.

Yes he was an adult, who decided to threaten, chase and then physically attack a much smaller minor, who then tried to defend himself and screamed for help. The adult then fired a single round at the minor ending his life instantly..

I guess I can see where i'm using Semantics? It's not like the law clearly said he was not an adult therefor he was a minor or child...

So if a verdict of not guilty is given by a jury then what should happen - in your opinion? Because I truly see a very good chance Z will walk away because the prosecutor acted like a politician.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i hope the jury is full of "white hispanics", just like o'j' jury was 11blacks, 1 hispanic, no bias whatsoever. lol

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zimmerman, 29, faces second degree murder charges for killing Martin.

http://abcnews.go.co...68#.UZJlaKLvuE0

Hmmm is that not exactly what I was saying he was guilty of? Did you not just say that I defined second degree murder? Curious as to how they arrived at that charge...

784.03 Battery; felony battery.

(1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person:

1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or

2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.

( B)Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who commits battery commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

784.045 Aggravated battery.

(1)(a) A person commits aggravated battery who, in committing battery:

1. Intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement; or

2. Uses a deadly weapon.

784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.

(1) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.

(2) A 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.

So now we can see a few things clearly:

1) Zimmerman did "Harass" and therefore "Stalk" Martin, initiating the conflict.

2) Martin did commit Battery against Zimmerman.

3) Zimmerman did commit Aggravated Battery against Martin, which lead to death.

^ Those are facts based on law, eye witness accounts, voice recordings and confession.

In yesterday's post I discussed the effect of Section 776.041 of Florida law which codifies the common law rule that to claim self-defense a criminal defendant must not have been the aggressor.

There are three examples which are similar to the circumstances in which a court states that once one initiates an engagement, they cannot then claim self-defense because they are at fault for their own actions and consequences.

FIRST:

The jury's unchallenged verdict on the burglary charge causes us to conclude that Vila was the initial aggressor and surrendered his right to self-defense.

Vila v. State 74 So.3d 1110 (5th Dist. 2011)

SECOND:

District Court of Appeal affirmed the defendant's conviction for attempted second degree murder. There was evidence that there had been an earlier altercation that day between the two men and that the defendant had attempted to run over the victim with his motorcycle. When the victim went to the store two or three hours later, the defendant was there. The defendant testified that the victim got out of his car and rushed towards him attacking him. The defendant said that he shot the victim because he was losing consciousness and was afraid the victim would kill him. The victim testified that when they arrived at the store the defendant banged on the back window of the victim's car, that he (the victim) got out of the car, the defendant approached the victim, and the two "got locked up" and "tussled a bit" when the defendant shot the victim.

The Court of Appeal found that victim's testimony was sufficient to invoke Section 776.041 and instruct the jury that the defendant may not claim self-defense if he "initially provoked" the attack.

Johnson v. State, 65 So.3d 1147 (3rd Dist. 2011)

THIRD: (Read carefully at how similar the cases are, and what the court ruled.)

The appellant and the man he later admitted killing had an altercation while the appellant was sitting in his jeep, the other man standing at the side of the vehicle. The appellant drove to his home nearby where he procured a revolver, while his adversary continued along the highway, afoot. The appellant, accompanied by his wife and their young daughter, then drove in the same direction until he overtook his former antagonist when both stopped. … Were we convinced that the final encounter was of such nature that the issue of self defense was properly introduced and the appellant's blame should therefore be judged by the amount of force he used in resisting his victim, we think the testimony would have been admissible. But the facts believed by the jury point too strongly to a deliberate pursuit by appellant, after the original difficulty had ended and the parties had separated. The law is quite clear that one may not provoke a difficulty and having done so act under the necessity produced by the difficulty, then kill his adversary and justify the homicide under the plea of self defense. (emphasis supplied)

Mixon v. State 59 So.2d 38 (Fla. 1952)

Open and shut case. You cannot initiate a conflict, then cry wolf.

You are arguing something that has the same logic as jumping in front of a moving car, opening fire and then saying you were defending yourself.

If YOU put yourself in a situation where you are in danger, you are not defending yourself.. If someone else puts you in a situation where you are in danger, you are defending yourself.

Oh and he did put himself in danger, by stalking someone whom he believed to be suspicious.

Stating otherwise is arguing politics.

Edited by xFelix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.

(1) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.

(2) A 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.

Oh and he did put himself in danger, by stalking someone whom he believed to be suspicious.

Stating otherwise is arguing politics.

Actually by your own definition, George did not stalk Trayvon. He followed him once.

It's quite possible that Trayvon initiated the conflict.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually by your own definition, George did not stalk Trayvon. He followed him once.

It's quite possible that Trayvon initiated the conflict.

He followed twice(He loses Martin and continues until he finds him again), making it a repeat. Which is why everyone is calling his actions stalking.

How is it possible that Martin initiated the conflict when you explicitly hear Zimmerman confess to stalking the minor before Martin had done anything(other then a stare) to him? Not to mention, Martin did turn and retreat before any law was broken.

Transcript where he acknowledges that Martin is guilty of... looking at houses, and later admits to pursuing Martin:

http://www.documentc...-zimmerman.html

Note: Even after he loses Martin, he continues to search for him meaning any other engagement was also of his own initiation.

When they did confront again it was because of Zimmerman's continued and deliberate stalking, the fact that Martin got away or at least intended to do so means he was not engaging, or in any way threatening the safety of Zimmerman.

Zimmerman continued stalking his prey until he found him again, and then they both engaged in battery against each other. This situation, and engagement was solely the construct of Zimmerman, therefore he cannot claim he was defending himself from a situation which he repetitively created.

Edited by xFelix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He followed once, but also created a substantial amount of stress with no legitimate purpose, which would be a secondary trespass against that statute, making it a repeat.

How is it possible that Martin initiated the conflict when you explicitly hear Zimmerman confess to stalking the minor before the minor had done anything to him?

He did not stalk him. He followed him with a legitimate reason. The neighborhood has had a rash of burgleries recently by reported black teens. Trayvon was a black teen who was a stranger to the neighborhood, walking in the rain and stopping by houses. I would be disappointed in someone if they did not keep an eye on Trayvon. George also called the cops. Clearly not a move that a "stalker" makes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is Merica?

He defended himself against a violent man. Enough said.

'Merica is supposed to be redneck slang for America used only by racist liberals to imply anyone who doesn't fully side with a minority on any given issue is a racist redneck. Funny thing is, George Zimmerman is a minority too but for all intensive left wing purposes he is white.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He did not stalk him. He followed him with a legitimate reason. The neighborhood has had a rash of burgleries recently by reported black teens. Trayvon was a black teen who was a stranger to the neighborhood, walking in the rain and stopping by houses. I would be disappointed in someone if they did not keep an eye on Trayvon. George also called the cops. Clearly not a move that a "stalker" makes.

Walking in the rain, while being black, in an area where blacks have committed crimes, looking at houses... Find that in the law book as a crime(Racial profiling lol). Then and only then, you have probable cause, which does not apply anyway since Zimmerman is not an officer.

You are on the right track though, it will all boil down to was he stalking or not.

If Zimmerman can prove that he was not stalking, he goes free... If the prosecution proves he was, he goes to jail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walking in the rain, while being black, in an area where blacks have committed crimes, looking at houses... Find that in the law book as a crime(Racial profiling lol). Then and only then, you have probable cause, which does not apply anyway since Zimmerman is not an officer.

You are on the right track though, it will all boil down to was he stalking or not.

If Zimmerman can prove that he was not stalking, he goes free... If the prosecution proves he was, he goes to jail.

It doesn't have to be a crime, just a legit reason. It was.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't have to be a crime, just a legit reason. It was.

Racial discrimination cannot be used as a legitimate reason, that would entail that he followed Martin as a hate crime and the whole defense would blow up in his face.

His closest legitimate reason was that the kid was "walking around looking at houses", and even that is not a legitimate reason to follow someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are stating your opinions. No evidence to back it up.

Correct, and what is frequently passed off as "evidence" here and elsewhere on this case is pretty much the same. Unless one happens to have been there, or is involved in the investigation, most everything we read about this case is opinion and speculation.

Edited by Babe Ruth
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Racial discrimination cannot be used as a legitimate reason,

bloomberg, and nypd chef kelly say it can. and it works. (stop and frisk).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

bloomberg, and nypd chef kelly say it can. and it works. (stop and frisk).

Stop and frisk applies to law enforcement officers, seeing as how Zimmerman was neither an officer or any form of law enforcement.. He has no authority to frisk at all.

He wasn't even a member of a crime watch, he was just a vigilante.. The Dark Knight. lol

Edited by xFelix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Racial discrimination cannot be used as a legitimate reason, that would entail that he followed Martin as a hate crime and the whole defense would blow up in his face.

His closest legitimate reason was that the kid was "walking around looking at houses", and even that is not a legitimate reason to follow someone.

If George thought that his behavior was suspicious, that is legitmate. Trayvon fit the description of the robbers. That does not make it racial discrimination. Not just black, but young and thin. He also looked to be casing some houses. I would keep an eye on him too.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop and frisk applies to law enforcement officers, seeing as how Zimmerman was neither an officer or any form of law enforcement.. He has no authority to frisk at all.

He wasn't even a member of a crime watch, he was just a vigilante.. The Dark Knight. lol

We don't have an official neighborhood watch in our neighborhood either, but we do watch. A neighbor recently called me about a strange, middle aged, bald, white man in my front porch looking around the windows. If he'd been black she shouldn't have assumed he was up to no good?

Edited by Michelle
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't have an official neighborhood watch in our neighborhood either, but we do watch. A neighbor recently called me about a strange, middle aged, bald white man in my front porch looking around the windows. If he'd been black she shouldn't have assumed he was up to no good?

Regardless of color, he was on your property, looking into your windows.. That is not the same as "walking around the area, looking at all the houses".

By those means, anybody that goes looking for rent can be legally stalked by a vigilante who just doesn't like them...

Also, even if he was on your property looking in your windows.. The second he turns and walks out of your property(or just plain walks away) and you follow him, you cross the line and are now harassing him.

Edited by xFelix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By those means, anybody that goes looking for rent can be legally stalked by a vigilante who just doesn't like them...

no, he would not be stalked, google stalk defenition, he would be monitored, approached and ask qs. and if he tells me " go f,,k yourself, it is not any of your buissnes", than i treat him very different, and if he grabs me, or throus a punch, i will use any means available to make sure he isn't doing it again. after all, he might have a knife or a gun, and he can use it on me, i'm not gonna take that chance.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of color, he was on your property, looking into your windows.. That is not the same as "walking around the area, looking at all the houses".

By those means, anybody that goes looking for rent can be legally stalked by a vigilante who just doesn't like them...

Surely, you know of people going out to case people's houses. They do it by simply driving slowly down the road or walking by. If you called the police what could you actually tell them? They look suspicious walking or driving by? Do you keep an eye out in case you see them later? If you see them, or someone that looks like them, again do you watch them or call the police? Or both"

Edited by Michelle
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now bringing up History of an individual is OK?.....

Come on Felix... Is bringing up personnal histories OK or not? Or is it just OK to use to prove one sides case and not the other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely, you know of people going out to case people's houses. They do it by simply driving slowly down the road or walking by. If you called the police what could you actually tell them? They look suspicious walking or driving by? Do you keep an eye out in case you see them later? If you see them, or someone that looks like them, again do you watch them or call the police? Or both"

Yes, I know exactly what casing a lick is.. in a more intimate way than i'd like to admit.

Your post is a far cry from following someone down the street, losing them and continuing on the hunt for them...

I also know that if i walk away from your property after casing it and you follow me, I can call the cops and press charges on your for harassment lol

You guys are not cops, neither was Zimmerman you cannot pursue anyone beyond what is necessary to ensure your safety. <-- legitimate reason.

The moment your pursuit crosses the line from you ensuring your safety, to you wanting something else you are harassing that person.

Even if it's just to curse them out, you are harassing them. Repetitive harassment is defined as stalking.

In the State of Florida only Law Enforcement Officers have the authority to detain, frisk, or arrest a person.

Edited by xFelix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted a link to a site where a Police Officer said they are Not. So, please post your own resource as to why you believe that the 911 operator IS law enforcement.

Because your whole arguement rests on Z pursuing M illegally.

Felix... Please, please, please, please, please post a link/resource that says a Florida 911 operator is a Law Enforcement officer.

Please post a quote where you "Clearly quoted the law"? I believe what you posted is "According to FSS 782, Zimmerman is Guilty of Murder.."

.....

So you have failed to show imminent danger, and failed to show a depraved mindset, and failed to show disregard fore human life. So none of the conditions for Murder are met. M's girlfriend was talking to him right as the two met up. There was no sense of deadly danger, or depravity or disregard for life in her statements.

Felix.... Where do you show any of the variables linked to 2nd Degree Murder? Stalking is not murder. Aggrivated assault is not murder. Intent to follow someone is not intent to murder. There is zero chance of providing evidence that Z wanted to kill anyone. So Murder is simply not going to stick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the State of Florida only Law Enforcement Officers have the authority to detain, frisk, or arrest a person.

SO??

Z never tried to detain, arrest or frisk M.

show an evidence that he tried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.