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 wonder if anyone talked to other people in his Neighborhood Watch group? Surely if he was crazed about killing people, they would know something. I don't remember seeing a single report about other Watch members being interviewed.

I think what sets Zimmerman apart from most people is that- according to his own statement- with the exception of his workplace, he carried his gun everywhere he went. Indeed, that particular night, he stated that he was on his way to get groceries.

Now, I'm not saying that's it's wrong to carry a gun!, I'm just saying that I view that as an unusual habit, and it's a behavior that offers insight into his mentality.

Edited by regi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Running a red light vs. projecting your personal image as that of a THUG are two entirely different things. Running a red light can surely be an accident. Asking a friend if they want to share a blacked out illegal handgun with you in a text message is not an accident.

If the defense tried to make Trayvon look bad by saying he ran multiple red lights the judge and jury would laugh at them.

Yet even if he did have a blacked out handgun before that night, how does it relate to him walking down the street that night? Is it that you're trying to say that Zimmerman was right in thinking he was suspicious? Of course he was, regardless of whatever else anyone says.. If someone you don't know walks around the neighborhood you have a right to be suspicious of them! But do you have a right to follow them around based on your own personal beliefs, even when they make it clear they want nothing to do with you? Are you the law, or are you going to call the law and have them handle it?

I just don't understand what the problem is when it comes to people wanting to use prior history in a present crime, unless they are directly connected it is irrelevant.

Someone said you can run a light 10 miles down the street and 10 miles later be pulled over and say "that was ten miles ago".. The past crime is directly connected in that case...

Someone talking about guns and using drugs, and not doing anything related to this crime a week later is not a direct connection. Did drugs or a gun give him any reason to walk down that street? No connection, it is useless in the case.. Now if the case were about a stoned teen walking down a street, then you have a reason to bring up their drug abuse.

Note: Same applies for Zimmerman, how would his previous fight with an officer be relevant to a crime that has no direct connection to that fight? It doesn't, so it shouldn't be allowed because it just is not relevant.. The law is clear and concise, yes or no.. There is no maybe in the law. It's either it's related or not, and if it is not related it serves no purpose other than slandering.

Edited by xFelix
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what sets Zimmerman apart from most people is that- according to his own statement- with the exception of his workplace, he carried his gun everywhere he went. Indeed, that particular night, he stated that he was on his way to get groceries.

Now, I'm not saying that's it's wrong to carry a gun!, I'm just saying that I view that as an unusual habit, and it's a behavior that offers insight into his mentality.

A mentality that evidently saved his life :whistle:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what sets Zimmerman apart from most people is that- according to his own statement- with the exception of his workplace, he carried his gun everywhere he went. Indeed, that particular night, he stated that he was on his way to get groceries.

Now, I'm not saying that's it's wrong to carry a gun!, I'm just saying that I view that as an unusual habit, and it's a behavior that offers insight into his mentality.

And you live in Texas?

I know some very well respected people who carry guns on them at all times. Doctors, lawyers, university professors, etc. And they are the nicest and most gentle people you'd ever want to meet. They have simply chosen to take personal responsibility for their own self defense.

Edited by Rafterman
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I view that as an unusual habit, and it's a behavior that offers insight into his mentality.

really? somone from texas views carrying a gun as unusual???? lol.

that view is unusual.

afaik carrying guns in tx is as usual as wearing hats

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you live in Texas?

I know some very well respected people who carry guns on them at all times. Doctors, lawyers, university professors, etc. And they are the nicest and most gentle people you'd ever want to meet. They have simply chosen to take personal responsibility for their own self defense.

I live in Texas. Both me and my husband have CCL's and we carry. My father in law has a CCL and carries everywhere, too. Very normal. Most people here carry.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That might be evident to you, but it's certainly not evident to me.

When you're the neighborhood watchman, it's time to lock and load.

That said, does walking down the street with a soda along with a history of marijuana use qualify as suspicious behavior? Someone needs to explain Zimmerman's excuse for running Martin down. He's got the self-defense defense for the gunning-down part. What I don't agree with is his pursuit of the hooded man in the first place. If he had suspicions that something was wrong, that's what 911 is for.

Zimmerman should have to answer to charges of wrongful death. This case isn't an excuse to surf on a political wave of gun control legislation either.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you live in Texas?

Yeah, that's correct. (I haven't moved and the last time I checked, it's still called Texas.)

And you live in Texas?

I know some very well respected people who carry guns on them at all times. Doctors, lawyers, university professors, etc. And they are the nicest and most gentle people you'd ever want to meet. They have simply chosen to take personal responsibility for their own self defense.

I don't dismiss facts and circumstances of a case. I consider them together with other evidence. Alone, a fact or circumstance could be meaningless, but together with other evidence, they might paint a picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you're the neighborhood watchman, it's time to lock and load.

That said, does walking down the street with a soda along with a history of marijuana use qualify as suspicious behavior? Someone needs to explain Zimmerman's excuse for running Martin down. He's got the self-defense defense for the gunning-down part. What I don't agree with is his pursuit of the hooded man in the first place. If he had suspicions that something was wrong, that's what 911 is for.

Zimmerman should have to answer to charges of wrongful death. This case isn't an excuse to surf on a political wave of gun control legislation either.

If he in fact pursued Martin, he has no right to self-defense when Martin goes on the offensive... That's what the law says, and the law doesn't accept personal interpretations..

Everyone sees the issue from Zimmerman's point of view.. But nobody sees it from Martin's point of view.

Possible Martin POV:

You're walking down a street when suddenly a truck just stops in the middle of the road... you approach cautiously and nervously wondering wtf is going on.. the door opens and some guy gets out staring at you so you take off... The guy obviously wants to hurt you because he's chasing you.. You then have every legal right to turn around, stand your ground and meet force with force in order for that person to stop chasing you and putting you in a dangerous situation.

I can only speculate on either POV because the truth is, lots of the facts are obscure in this case... Why was Zimmerman not tested for drugs and alcohol?(This is common practice, and actually has a law involving such a thing.) Why do various witnesses support BOTH stories?(How is this even possible?)

The only thing I can say with certainty, is that if Zimmerman did in fact chase Martin he did surrender his rights to self-defense because he put himself in a dangerous situation. This is not my opinion, this is the law of which governs the jurisdiction that the crime occurred in.

I'm just curious to know if he really chased Martin, or if he was really running towards police...

BTW: The reason you surrender your rights to self-defense if you put yourself in a dangerous situation is because if you didn't... You could legally go stand in traffic and if the drivers didn't swerve you could invoke self-defense and start spraying them down. Same applies in other situations...

PS-Applying your own state/country laws will cause a problem, this didn't happen in your states or countries.. This happened in Florida, so Florida laws apply.

lawyers are well respected ppl?? lol, that is news, i doubt many who aren't lawyers have much respect for them.

I laughed at that too lol

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

Re: whether or not Zimmerman was in pursuit of Martin, the 9-1-1- call doesn't correlate with Zimmerman's re-enactment.

Among the discrepancies was re: the actual reason he said he exited his vehicle. In the 9-1-1 call, he stated that Martin ran, and it was at that point that he exited his vehicle. That event can be heard on the tape, but in the re-enactment (in which he gave a very disjointed account), he never said Martin ran... and that he exited his vehicle when he decided to look for a street sign.

Also, based on the 9-1-1 call, Zimmerman should have had more than sufficient time to return to his vehicle after he'd agreed not to follow Martin.

That makes it obvious to me that Zimmerman had to have continued to look for Martin, long after agreeing not to follow.

Edited by regi
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's correct. (I haven't moved and the last time I checked, it's still called Texas.)

I don't dismiss facts and circumstances of a case. I consider them together with other evidence. Alone, a fact or circumstance could be meaningless, but together with other evidence, they might paint a picture.

I'm not commenting on the case, just your ascertain that carrying a firearm somehow raises questions about a person's mental state and motivations.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what sets Zimmerman apart from most people is that- according to his own statement- with the exception of his workplace, he carried his gun everywhere he went. Indeed, that particular night, he stated that he was on his way to get groceries.

Now, I'm not saying that's it's wrong to carry a gun!, I'm just saying that I view that as an unusual habit, and it's a behavior that offers insight into his mentality.

Lots of people carry guns everywhere they go. It is not really so uncommon. I think it is only in the big Urban areas that it is discouraged. Probably because the police are no more then 5 minutes from you at any time. Out in BackWoodsTown USA, the nearest police, sheriff, state trooper... might be an hour away.

If he in fact pursued Martin, he has no right to self-defense when Martin goes on the offensive... That's what the law says, and the law doesn't accept personal interpretations..

Everyone sees the issue from Zimmerman's point of view.. But nobody sees it from Martin's point of view.

Possible Martin POV:

You're walking down a street when suddenly a truck just stops in the middle of the road... you approach cautiously and nervously wondering wtf is going on.. the door opens and some guy gets out staring at you so you take off... The guy obviously wants to hurt you because he's chasing you.. You then have every legal right to turn around, stand your ground and meet force with force in order for that person to stop chasing you and putting you in a dangerous situation.

I can only speculate on either POV because the truth is, lots of the facts are obscure in this case... Why was Zimmerman not tested for drugs and alcohol?(This is common practice, and actually has a law involving such a thing.) Why do various witnesses support BOTH stories?(How is this even possible?)

The only thing I can say with certainty, is that if Zimmerman did in fact chase Martin he did surrender his rights to self-defense because he put himself in a dangerous situation. This is not my opinion, this is the law of which governs the jurisdiction that the crime occurred in.

I'm just curious to know if he really chased Martin, or if he was really running towards police...

BTW: The reason you surrender your rights to self-defense if you put yourself in a dangerous situation is because if you didn't... You could legally go stand in traffic and if the drivers didn't swerve you could invoke self-defense and start spraying them down. Same applies in other situations...

I thought the law said if you provoked a confrontation you loose the right to Self Defense. As far as I know following someone is not provoking a confrontation. The error Zimmerman made is in not turning around the moment Martin stopped moving away and turned to confront the person following him. The Prosecution will have to proove that Zimmerman had intent to catch Martin and not just to follow and observe him. If I follow a fellow shopper around the store, that does not give that shopper the right to gum me down, or throw me down and repeatedly bounce my head off the floor.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of people carry guns everywhere they go. It is not really so uncommon. I think it is only in the big Urban areas that it is discouraged. Probably because the police are no more then 5 minutes from you at any time. Out in BackWoodsTown USA, the nearest police, sheriff, state trooper... might be an hour away.

Where I live it's more like, 45 minutes away.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not commenting on the case, just your ascertain that carrying a firearm somehow raises questions about a person's mental state and motivations.

It's a fact of the case that Zimmerman carried his gun everywhere he went, and if you don't find that circumstance unusual, and you don't think such a habit could or would offer insight into that person's mentality, then we disagree.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a fact of the case that Zimmerman carried his gun everywhere he went, and if you don't find that circumstance unusual, and you don't think such a habit could or would offer insight into that person's mentality, then we disagree.

I think you would find most police officer's wives carry them at all times too. These officers know what goes on in the streets and realize they can't be everywhere at once...even for their families. Especially with their families, who they want to keep safe.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes it obvious to me that Zimmerman had to have continued to look for Martin, long after agreeing not to follow.

Which is IMO what takes it from "self defence" to "intentional provocation" IMO.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where I live it's more like, 45 minutes away.

Proof right there of the need of a gun. What if bigfoot attacked your car? How are you going to chase him off? With a stick?

I think car-jackings in mainly rural areas are very low percentage wise. Because... rural people carry guns.

It's a fact of the case that Zimmerman carried his gun everywhere he went, and if you don't find that circumstance unusual, and you don't think such a habit could or would offer insight into that person's mentality, then we disagree.

Saying he "Carried a gun all the time"... Aren't you "bringing up his past"? Which is supposedly not the issue.....

Trayvon was on drugs at the time, and Zimmerman had his gun. These are both facts. Does it matter the history behind both these facts? HELL YES it matters....!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see that the media has already hung Zimmerman out to dry. we get to see his mugshot on TV and what do we get for Trayvon not the recent thug pictures but the sweet innocent pictures from years ago.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see that the media has already hung Zimmerman out to dry. we get to see his mugshot on TV and what do we get for Trayvon not the recent thug pictures but the sweet innocent pictures from years ago.

Any chance of George getting a fair trial?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he in fact pursued Martin, he has no right to self-defense when Martin goes on the offensive... That's what the law says, and the law doesn't accept personal interpretations..

Everyone sees the issue from Zimmerman's point of view.. But nobody sees it from Martin's point of view.

Possible Martin POV:

You're walking down a street when suddenly a truck just stops in the middle of the road... you approach cautiously and nervously wondering wtf is going on.. the door opens and some guy gets out staring at you so you take off... The guy obviously wants to hurt you because he's chasing you.. You then have every legal right to turn around, stand your ground and meet force with force in order for that person to stop chasing you and putting you in a dangerous situation.

I can only speculate on either POV because the truth is, lots of the facts are obscure in this case... Why was Zimmerman not tested for drugs and alcohol?(This is common practice, and actually has a law involving such a thing.) Why do various witnesses support BOTH stories?(How is this even possible?)

The only thing I can say with certainty, is that if Zimmerman did in fact chase Martin he did surrender his rights to self-defense because he put himself in a dangerous situation. This is not my opinion, this is the law of which governs the jurisdiction that the crime occurred in.

I'm just curious to know if he really chased Martin, or if he was really running towards police...

BTW: The reason you surrender your rights to self-defense if you put yourself in a dangerous situation is because if you didn't... You could legally go stand in traffic and if the drivers didn't swerve you could invoke self-defense and start spraying them down. Same applies in other situations...

PS-Applying your own state/country laws will cause a problem, this didn't happen in your states or countries.. This happened in Florida, so Florida laws apply.

I laughed at that too lol

You'll have to cite this "law" for me in writing, thanks.

If you're a neighborhood watch and you pursue someone and it puts you in a dangerous situation, what law in Florida says one relinquishes their right to self defense? That's one I haven't heard and if true, it's immeasurably more concerning than anything this case can produce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll have to cite this "law" for me in writing, thanks.

If you're a neighborhood watch and you pursue someone and it puts you in a dangerous situation, what law in Florida says one relinquishes their right to self defense? That's one I haven't heard and if true, it's immeasurably more concerning than anything this case can produce.

It's Florida Common Law, and I have quoted it in this thread various times... "If you're Neighborhood Watch and you pursue"... Do you see the problem?

Neighborhood Watch is not law enforcement, you do not have the right to stalk, follow, or harass anyone because you are a member of a "Neighborhood Watch". What you do have the right to do is observe suspicious activity, report it to law enforcement and take partial credit for the apprehension of a criminal.

Following, pursuing, chasing, stalking, harassing... Those are all reasons for your target individual to turn and stand his ground, and be doing so within legal means. So if you chase someone down, and they turn and put the knuckles to you, it is your fault. You had no legal right to chase them down, they felt there was a need to meet your threat to their safety with physical force in order to terminate that threat to their safety. You cannot then pull a gun and shoot them because you threatened their safety and they defended themselves. This is the law.

Claiming Martin was intoxicated while seeming like a good move for the Zimmerman defense can actually be a severely bad move for them.

Although the state wants to keep Martin's past out of Zimmerman's second-degree murder trial, the defense appears to be pushing to use Martin's alleged past drug use and to imply that Martin was "under the influence of marijuana at the time of his death and that his thinking and judgment were impaired."

Courtesy: http://www.clickorla...8c/-/index.html

The problem with that is, the Zimmerman police phone call transcript does reveal he did in fact believe Martin was intoxicated as well as he did mention that the suspicious person had his hand in his waistband and was walking towards him. What does this mean? This means that Zimmerman did believe the suspect to be dangerous, and according to the police transcript when the suspicious person decided to not confront him, he decided to chase down someone he believed to be dangerous, purposely putting himself in harms way while having no legal grounds to do so...

The only question that remains is did he turn and start moving towards police and then Martin attacked(Innocent of Murder, he was defending himself), or was he still actively pursuing someone he believed to be dangerous when Martin turned and defended himself(Guilty of Murder, he was not defending himself)...

This is why allowing the "Tox Reports" from Autopsy might actually hurt his case, because they can be used to further prove that he did have reason to believe the person he was interacting with was dangerous, but still decided to put himself in harms way.

It's a fact of the case that Zimmerman carried his gun everywhere he went, and if you don't find that circumstance unusual, and you don't think such a habit could or would offer insight into that person's mentality, then we disagree.

I carry my firearm on me 24/7, doesn't mean I intend to kill anyone with it.. Just means that if my life is ever threatened and I can't count on the cops to get here on time I will survive. I also won't go chasing anyone I think is dangerous cause I got a gun. That doesn't make sense in my mind, I just wanna live so if they walk away I'm happy with the results.

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

Following, pursuing, chasing, stalking, harassing... Those are all reasons for your target individual to turn and stand his ground, and be doing so within legal means. So if you chase someone down, and they turn and put the knuckles to you, it is your fault. You had no legal right to chase them down, they felt there was a need to meet your threat to their safety with physical force in order to terminate that threat to their safety. You cannot then pull a gun and shoot them because you threatened their safety and they defended themselves. This is the law.

Isn't there an expectation of meeting force with similar force? You can't feel like someone is going to toss a rock at you, so you put a bullet into their head. You can fistfight with someone who fistfights you, or shoot at someone who is shooting at you. To confront someone following you, does not automatically allow you to grab them and bang their head on the ground a dozen times. Trying to prove that Trayvon was THAT scared would require proving that Trayvon saw Zimmerman's pistol. Which I just don't think it provable.

Where in Chapter 776 of Florida law does it say that following someone creates "necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force." Following someone is not unlawful force...

776.012.

Where does it say following some creates "He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony" Following does not provoke thoughts of imminent death or great bodily harm, or a forcible felony.

The only thing following is, is that it is against the Neighborhood Watch rules, which is not an actual Crime, I believe. And possibly stalking, but that is a very debatable charge. Disobeying a 911 dispatcher is also not a Crime.

The worst (for Zimmerman) case that can be made of the fatal shooting is possibly manslaugher.

The only question that remains is did he turn and start moving towards police and then Martin attacked(Innocent of Murder, he was defending himself), or was he still actively pursuing someone he believed to be dangerous when Martin turned and defended himself(Guilty of Murder, he was not defending himself)...

I think that point will be what the Trial hinges on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't there an expectation of meeting force with similar force? You can't feel like someone is going to toss a rock at you, so you put a bullet into their head. You can fistfight with someone who fistfights you, or shoot at someone who is shooting at you. To confront someone following you, does not automatically allow you to grab them and bang their head on the ground a dozen times. Trying to prove that Trayvon was THAT scared would require proving that Trayvon saw Zimmerman's pistol. Which I just don't think it provable.

Where in Chapter 776 of Florida law does it say that following someone creates "necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force." Following someone is not unlawful force... <-- WRONG. Following someone without legal grounds is harassment, and when done more than once it is stalking.

776.012.

Where does it say following some creates "He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony" Following does not provoke thoughts of imminent death or great bodily harm, or a forcible felony.<-- WRONG. Harassment, and even Stalking can be taken as a threat of great bodily harm, as BOTH crimes have a tendency to lead to just that.

The only thing following is, is that it is against the Neighborhood Watch rules, which is not an actual Crime, I believe. And possibly stalking, but that is a very debatable charge. Disobeying a 911 dispatcher is also not a Crime.

The worst (for Zimmerman) case that can be made of the fatal shooting is possibly manslaugher <-- WRONG. Why do I keep having to remind you the Florida Law says this is Murder 2? Simple as what I have said a mess of times, if his illegal activity lead to the death of another it is Murder 2. If he was defending himself, this isn't even manslaughter.

I think that point will be what the Trial hinges on.

Jesus wept man I'm the foreigner and I know how to read English, how about you?

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.