Trayvon Martin case will not go to the Grand Jury

[tyler524]

IMO, it's more difficult to have scorn for a dead person... not impossible, just harder, they've already paid the ultimate price...

also "illegedly" QUIT FOLLOWING, there is still a ton of wind noise on the microphone, which kinda makes me doubt that part of the story...

It has been said that the weather wasn't exactly ideal that day. It may have just been windy

[swingset]

also "illegedly" QUIT FOLLOWING, there is still a ton of wind noise on the microphone, which kinda makes me doubt that part of the story...

Where the attack occurred pretty much confirms that.

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back

[magley64]

LOL, Zimmerman's lawyer "there was no fisting"

found it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCuxTopsruE&feature=watch_response

14:32

[chevysoldier]

No place is safe. Murder has happened everywhere, even so called safe places like school and churchs. A gun is the only thing that will put a 90 year old woman and a 20. Year old gang Banger on equal grounds. Can't grab a gun out of someone's hand if they shoot you from 7 yards away. Can't punch em either.

If someone breaks into my house at night I don't want to confrobt them totry to go hand to hand. I want my best advantage and using cover if possible. Why would I want to risk giving them an advantage? Tactically stupid.

[crb]

No place is safe. Murder has happened everywhere, even so called safe places like school and churchs. A gun is the only thing that will put a 90 year old woman and a 20. Year old gang Banger on equal grounds. Can't grab a gun out of someone's hand if they shoot you from 7 yards away. Can't punch em either.

If someone breaks into my house at night I don't want to confrobt them totry to go hand to hand. I want my best advantage and using cover if possible. Why would I want to risk giving them an advantage? Tactically stupid.

+1

Have the toxicology results been released for trayvone?

[drew95gt]

I wish I could have the same view of the world as you Mags, but I have seen the other side. I work my 2nd job at a large Columbus trauma center and I see the kind of stuff that goes on in the real world. Some of those 17 year old "kids" are harder than some of the folks I see coming in from the prisons. Seeing that kind of stuff go down so close to the town I live in was more than enough for me to keep firearms in my home to protect my family, and if I had more sense (and was legally allowed to) I would probably conceal carry when I go to work down there. I'm not shitting you when I say that one evening walking into work I walked by a couple "kids" sitting in a car in the parking lot very loudly discussing how they told their friend to ditch his gun before he came there...fuck that shit. It is a crazy, messed up world out there...and crime often happens when and where you least expect it. If someone comes into my house and threatens to cause physical harm to me or my family..or attacks me or my family on the street I am NOT being the victim I don't care how old they are.

[max power]

#6, if someone jumps on my back and starts slamming my head, I'm not reaching for a gun, I'm throwing elbows. The only time I'd reach for a gun (even if I carried one) was if I were faced with a gun.

You are beyond full of shit. If someone is slamming your head into concrete, you will defend yourself with any means possible, including pumping their weak little 17 year old ass full of lead. Because we all know 17 year olds are all weak since they are younger than you. Right, tough guy?

[magley64]

Sorry you think so little of my integrity max... but its fine, you live your life your way, and I'll live mine my way, I do wish you all the best, stay safe out there.

[ohiomike]

yessir swingset, very well said and spot on.

[Steve Butters]

i think him being 17 isnt really relevant...aside from the facts of this case, i have known some 17 year olds who you would not want to fuck with....a kid in my HS was benching almost 400lbs at age 17...and he was about 6'3, probably 280....big fucking athletic football player....he would beat the brakes off some 28 yr old out of shape latino guy in hand-to-hand combat

[Steve Butters]

Doesn't matter where you live, it can still happen to you. Even if you live in BFE with a 2 mile long driveway, it can still happen to you.

yep!

one of the most famous murders in history happened in a small town in the middle of nowhere kansas at a farm house...

http://www.gcpolice.org/History/Clutter/Cutter_Family_Murders.htm

they wrote a book about it "In Cold Blood" ...may even be a movie about it

[Pokey]

Uncle Swingset is very good at getting his point across. And I just try to put myself in that situation and think to myself, what would I have likely done? I am glad that George is gonna get his day/days in court, and hopefully this will turnout better than the Casey Anthony debacle. If George gets off, he will probably have to move out of the country, because of all the crazy whacko people that live here.

[magley64]

i think him being 17 isnt really relevant...aside from the facts of this case, i have known some 17 year olds who you would not want to fuck with....a kid in my HS was benching almost 400lbs at age 17...and he was about 6'3, probably 280....big fucking athletic football player....he would beat the brakes off some 28 yr old out of shape latino guy in hand-to-hand combat

He wasn't 280 pounds and built like a brick shithouse, he was smaller than zimmerman...

Put me up against any 160 lb 17 yr old...I'm not afraid, even if I am a little out of shape.

[TheBrown57]

I wouldn't fuck with some of the people I knew at 17 that were less than 160, crazy ass midgets an shit

[max power]

I wouldn't fuck with some of the people I knew at 17 that were less than 160, crazy ass midgets an shit

true. I've seen some scrappy ass 160 pounders. Most have the ADD and drink energy drinks like water. And forget about Skittles, that shit makes you rage.

[magley64]

Lol @max

[Rod38um]

He wasn't 280 pounds and built like a brick shithouse, he was smaller than zimmerman...

Put me up against any 160 lb 17 yr old...I'm not afraid, even if I am a little out of shape.

All accounts I have heard and read say Martin was much taller than Zimmerman. Additionally, Zimmerman is said to be 40 lbs lighter than any recent picture of him.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Rod38um

[BadTrainDriver]

Zimmerman should have NEVER left his truck.

He should have called 911 from the truck, and did what he was told, not get out of his truck and follow on foot.

The fact that he went after him, armed, will be the case that the prosecution uses to dismiss the Stand Your Ground law.

He admitted he was in his truck, and he admitted he followed him on foot.

Mark my word...those facts alone is why he'll spend life(or a good portion of it) behind bars without the chance of parole(because Florida doesn't have it).

He could have made several better decisions that night...

Edited April 12, 2012 by BadTrainDriver

[Rod38um]

After listening to the un-edited 911 tapes, I did not get the impression that he was actually following him so much as just keeping an eye on where he was from a distance. At one point he even talks casually about Martin 'running" towards him. That tells me that even though he said he was following him, he actually meant moving around so he could keep an eye on him from a distance.

[Scruit]

Some of those 17 year old "kids" are harder than some of the folks I see coming in from the prisons

A similar perspective: Some of the folks I do Karate and Jujitsu with are teenagers. They are lights, skinnier, more athletic then me. However, I don't have anywhere near as much training or experience as them, and they know how to fight.

Unless I get a lucky hit, I am simply no match for them. There's a couple in particular that can pin me down with ease and tap me out in seconds despite being about half my weight (And I'm only 215, 6'2") I remember one time I caught the leg of the guy I was sparring with and said; "What now, kid?" Well, I tapped out 2 seconds later after a textbook Guilllotine.

For all the training I've done over the last 18months, the most important thing I have learned is not to underestimate ANYONE.

[ohiomike]

Zimmerman should have NEVER left his truck.

He should have called 911 from the truck, and did what he was told, not get out of his truck and follow on foot.

The fact that he went after him, armed, will be the case that the prosecution uses to dismiss the Stand Your Ground law.

He admitted he was in his truck, and he admitted he followed him on foot.

Mark my word...those facts alone is why he'll spend life(or a good portion of it) behind bars without the chance of parole(because Florida doesn't have it).

He could have made several better decisions that night...

There is a lot more to this case than just these points. Is Zimmerman depraved? That's just a part of what has to be proven. Regardless of whether Zimmerman followed the kid, if in fact the kid jumped, attacked Zimmerman after the shooter had stopped following and was returning to his vehicle then the case of 'defending yourself when you feel your life is being threatened' gives Zimmerman the right to 'stand his ground' so to speak. Just because the 911 dispatcher told Zim not to follow the kid, Zimmerman doing so was not illegal nor does it show intent to kill. Its more like a concerned resident of the gated community wanting to make sure this person was not up to no good since this community had been burglarized several times in the past months. Remember, there is a reason why the community is gated. This gives them legal rights to keep out undesirables.

Not saying I condone a gated community but it is what it is. Here's a guy that tell's it like it is...."it is what it is"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LONUecnsMb8&feature=youtu.be

[BadTrainDriver]

After listening to the un-edited 911 tapes, I did not get the impression that he was actually following him so much as just keeping an eye on where he was from a distance. At one point he even talks casually about Martin 'running" towards him. That tells me that even though he said he was following him, he actually meant moving around so he could keep an eye on him from a distance.

Are you fucking serious?

Did you listen to the same call I did??

2:25...he was running AFTER Martin...

That is not Stand Your Ground...

[BadTrainDriver]

There is a lot more to this case than just these points. Is Zimmerman depraved? That's just a part of what has to be proven. Regardless of whether Zimmerman followed the kid, if in fact the kid jumped, attacked Zimmerman after the shooter had stopped following and was returning to his vehicle then the case of 'defending yourself when you feel your life is being threatened' gives Zimmerman the right to 'stand his ground' so to speak. Just because the 911 dispatcher told Zim not to follow the kid, Zimmerman doing so was not illegal nor does it show intent to kill. Its more like a concerned resident of the gated community wanting to make sure this person was not up to no good since this community had been burglarized several times in the past months. Remember, there is a reason why the community is gated. This gives them legal rights to keep out undesirables.

Not saying I condone a gated community but it is what it is. Here's a guy that tell's it like it is...."it is what it is"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LONUecnsMb8&feature=youtu.be

Facts:

Zimmerman followed Martin after being told not to, and that FACT is what will give the jury the reason to throw out Stand Your Ground.

Martin was visiting people that lived in the gated community, which gave his the right to be there.

Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.

Those are the facts.

That's it.

Fact.

The rest of your statement doesn't mean shit...legally speaking.

No, it's not illegal to follow someone...but if you do, you can't kill them and claim Stand Your Ground.

Read the law as it's written.

Read the very first part where it says "retreat".

Following, which he ADMITTED to doing, which is thus know as a FACT, is the opposite of retreating.

See how that works...

Florida

2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[20]

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) 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; or(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013. 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or© The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer. (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

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

(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.© “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property. 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

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.

Edited April 12, 2012 by BadTrainDriver

[Scruit]

If the trial bears out the assertion that he disengaged and walked away, and that martin initiated a new confrontation, then self defense is back on the table.

This was never about SYG. Either Zimmerman initiated the deadly confrontation (which is not self defense) or Zimmerman disengaged and Martin initiated a new encounter that became deadly force when Z was pinned to the ground (no ability to flee)

OR what happened was halfway between, and the prosecutor knows a game-changing fact that we don't.

The charge sheet indicates the weapon was drawn early in the confrontation. I want to know ecaxtly when.

- IF it was drawn PRIOR to any type of assault (by either party) then it could easily become felonious assault in and of itself.

- IF it was drawn during a confrontation that Zimmerman initiated then self-defense will be a tough sell.

- IF it was drawn after M initiated a new deadly-force encounter then Z has a good case for self defense.

The only time SYG would be relevant is in Martin assaulted Zimmerman, and Zimmerman HAD A CHANCE TO FLEE but did not. Then, and only then, is SYG a factor.

Regardless, the dems want SYG gone and will knowingly misapply this case in order to futher their goal.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Scruit

[BadTrainDriver]

I totally agree with you, Scruit.