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
 Share

Recommended Posts

neighborhood-watch-4x3-trayvon-martin1.jpg?w=488

Entrance gate to the area... LOL

According to local media reports, Zimmerman took seriously his volunteer role as captain of the neighborhood watch group in the diverse community.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/20/nation/la-na-nn-george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-20120320

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it illegal to have a neighborhood watch that is not officially registered?

When I lived in a sub-division, a few of us had what we considered a watch program, but it was just organized by us to keep an eye on each others houses.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So he thought he missed, but he told someone to call his wife and tell her he shot somebody?

Here is an example of your biased view.

It is most likey that initially he thought he had missed. After assessing the situation he called his wife and told her that he had shot him. You tried to turn this into a "lie". Feeble attempt to discredit him. Which media outfit do you work for?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A neighborhood watch may be organized as its own group or may simply be a function of a neighborhood association or other community association.

Neighborhood watches are not vigilante organizations.

Just as a neighborhood can form a Homeowners Association without hiring a manager and an office, by holding meetings of concerned neighbors, a neighborhood can do the same with a Community Watch program. Membership in the national program is not required, and signs can be bought without a license (LOL) at Home Depot, or Lowes, or many other stores.

In response to the Trayvon Martin case, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) began drafting a bill that would require neighborhood watch groups to be certified and limit their duties. Currently, with local police agencies setting guidelines for their neighborhood watches, groups across the U.S. vary greatly in their scope, function, the level of activity by their members, and training. Robert McCrie, professor of security management at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City, disagrees with Lee's initiative. He believes that standards for neighborhood watches “are best left to the state or local community,” although he would support background checks for volunteers.

That Congressmen are talking about requiring oversight totally implies that such oversight is NOT required at present.

Quotes are from here....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhood_watch

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

That congresswoman is a moron. Forcing all watch programs to register and be certified will only eliminate watch groups. Not good. All because of one incident.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That congresswoman is a moron. Forcing all watch programs to register and be certified will only eliminate watch groups. Not good. All because of one incident.

Yes but this one incident is RAYSHUH in nature - and THAT changes everything....
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on Felix show me where I am wrong in this.....

I am still waiting for Felix or anyone else to show that a 911 operator in Florida is a Law Enforcement Officer.

If they are not then Felix and the Prosecuter are going to have a hard time showing that Z was legally ordered to stand down.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they are not then Felix and the Prosecuter are going to have a hard time showing that Z was legally ordered to stand down.

they are not. and you really don't want to do what they said, too many times ppl died cuz 911 operator is cluless to situation caller has a hand, they are there to listen and take info down, and pass it on to cops\ambulances\fire dept.

i bet this guy would tell you the same, if he survived.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.leg.state...s/0401.465.html

401.465 911 public safety telecommunicator certification.

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

(a) “911 public safety telecommunicator” means a public safety dispatcher or 911 operator whose duties and responsibilities include the answering, receiving, transferring, and dispatching functions related to 911 calls; dispatching law enforcement officers, fire rescue services, emergency medical services, and other public safety services to the scene of an emergency; providing real-time information from federal, state, and local crime databases; or supervising or serving as the command officer to a person or persons having such duties and responsibilities. However, the term does not include administrative support personnel, including, but not limited to, those whose primary duties and responsibilities are in accounting, purchasing, legal, and personnel.

They are Public Safety Officers which have a certain LEO ability, read the bold. They are not "LEO" but they are supervisors to "LEO" if no supervisor is present...

Also, we don't have to prove he was ordered to stand down.. We just have to prove that he followed Martin after Martin walked away and that lead to his death.

It's like i said earlier... it's all about the stalking.. if they can prove that he was stalking Martin he's screwed and no amount of fancy talk gets him home... But if he can wiggle his way out of the stalking there is a high chance he goes home.

Edited by xFelix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it doesn't mean squat, even if he followed him, even if he stalked. which we don't know. still irrelevant

Z had every right to shoot a b****** that was banging his head against the sidewalk, that is all, he had reason to believe his life was in immediate danger.

it is absolutely irrelavant who approached whom.

if it was, every time attacker sued a victim he would loose, becouse they were agressors\broke into a house,.... but they win, and that proves you wrong.

reality proves you wrong.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it doesn't mean squat, even if he followed him, even if he stalked. which we don't know. still irrelevant

Z had every right to shoot a b****** that was banging his head against the sidewalk, that is all, he had reason to believe his life was in immediate danger.

it is absolutely irrelavant who approached whom.

if it was, every time attacker sued a victim he would loose, becouse they were agressors\broke into a house,.... but they win, and that proves you wrong.

reality proves you wrong.

Again ffs i swear you guys can't read...

It is absolutely relevant who initiated the confrontation.

If Zimmerman initiated the confrontation he has no right to self-defense, which is why he must prove that he didn't follow Martin.(Basically if he followed Martin, he can't say he was in fear of nothing.. which means it's murder)

As long as Martin came running towards him, Zimmerman had every right to stand his ground.

We all know Zimmerman followed Martin... but it's not about what we know it's what we can prove that counts.

Edited by xFelix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again ffs i swear you guys can't read...

It is absolutely relevant who initiated the confrontation.

If Zimmerman initiated the confrontation he has no right to self-defense, which is why he must prove that he didn't follow Martin.(Basically if he followed Martin, he can't say he was in fear of nothing.. which means it's murder)

As long as Martin came running towards him, Zimmerman had every right to stand his ground.

But we all know Zimmerman followed Martin... Just a matter of what he can prove.

again, it doesn't matter, he had his head bashed against sidewalk, he had every right to shoot.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

again, it doesn't matter, he had his head bashed against sidewalk, he had every right to shoot.

ffs, you really can't read You cannot defend yourself if you are the attacker, even if you get your ass kicked.. You are simply just attacking.

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 put themselves in that danger. You cannot put yourself in danger and then claim self-defense.

FIRST:

Quote

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:

Quote

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.)

Quote

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, and i can show you cases where robber broke into a house , got shot , sued and won. while it was his actions that led to it. and cases like that are numeros.

so your resonings are false.

i also know of a case where a man killed a guy that shot his dog, and was not found guilty, does it mean anyone that shoots a someone that killed his dog is automaticly not guilty???

no.

every case is different, and especially this one, where you only know tiny bit, and even that from biased rasict media.

so forgive me for not taking seriosly anything you say in the matter.

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

The evidence shows that Trayvon attacked George, so this discussion is kind of useless.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.leg.state...s/0401.465.html

They are Public Safety Officers which have a certain LEO ability, read the bold. They are not "LEO" but they are supervisors to "LEO" if no supervisor is present...

Also, we don't have to prove he was ordered to stand down.. We just have to prove that he followed Martin after Martin walked away and that lead to his death.

It's like i said earlier... it's all about the stalking.. if they can prove that he was stalking Martin he's screwed and no amount of fancy talk gets him home... But if he can wiggle his way out of the stalking there is a high chance he goes home.

Thank you for posting that. But, as I'm sure you read, there is nothing in that about civilians having to obey a 911 operator. They have limited powers over those they are dispatching, not those who call in...

I do also agree that it will be up to the Jury and Judge to figure out if what Z did is Stalking or simply following. It is Z's intent that will be the factor. If he intended to simply watch, or if he intended on intercepting M.

But, even if it is shown that Z aggressively intercepted M and caused a confrontation. It still must be shown that he wanted to kill M, or it is not Murder. And, I just don't think there is any evidence that Z wanted to kill anyone.

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

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013/may/23/defense-releases-photos-texts-trayvon-martin/

Defense wants to suppress photos and texts that do not enhance the image the media portrayed of this young man. Z's attorney wants more time before next month's trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just a little piece of info,

2012 NYC crime statistics: 88% of those arrested for murder or non-negligent manslaughter were black or Hispanic, 91% of those arrested for rape black or Hispanic, and 91% of those arrested for robbery were black or Hispanic. Black and Hispanics are also typically the victims of these crimes as well: 87%, 75%, and 68% respectively.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The text messages include a conversation from November 2011 in which he appears to say his mother has kicked him out of the house after "da police caught me outta skool."

"So you just turning into a lil hoodlum," the person with whom he is texting says.

"Naw, I'm a gangsta," the text message read.

In other messages, text message exchanges appear to be discussing guns.

"U wanna share a .380 w/ (blacked out)," one text message sent from Martin's phone reads.

The text messaging logs are also peppered with references to marijuana use.

"I got weed nd I get money Friday," a message sent from his phone reads.

"I hid m weed," another text sent from Martin's phone reads. "its wrapped."

The attorney for Martin's family, Benjamin Crump, says the evidence is "irrelevant" and predicted it would never be used at Zimmerman's trial.

LINK

That evidence is critical if you ask me. The prosecution will almost certainly try painting a bad picture of Zimmerman by bringing up his past.

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

The pot smoking thing isn't such a big deal anymore by today's standards but the gun and the thug life mentions certainly are. Is he wearing some sort of grill in that bottom picture?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a bright guy to have taken pictures of himself smoking weed.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has that conversation between Martin and the person he was on the phone with at the time been released?

I think there was no recording, so only the transcript of the statements made by the girl exist. She latter took back some of what she initially told the police. She left out stuff in the inditment statement which originally had only been her opinon.

Also it turns out the girl was 18 at the time, not 16, like she told police initially. Some are making a big deal of that, because if she is a liar about her age, what else is she going to be lying about?

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

just a little piece of info,

2012 NYC crime statistics: 88% of those arrested for murder or non-negligent manslaughter were black or Hispanic, 91% of those arrested for rape black or Hispanic, and 91% of those arrested for robbery were black or Hispanic. Black and Hispanics are also typically the victims of these crimes as well: 87%, 75%, and 68% respectively.

So is that a result of Racism?... Profiling?... or simply that these groups have a violent sub-culture that needs fixing? My opinion is that it is cultural. These groups need to work on being less violent in how they raise their kids. And the excuse of poverty is just an excuse. We don't see the same percentages is white poverty statistics.

  • Like 3
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.