thoughts on the Trayvon murder

When police show up on scene of one person dead from a gunshot, and another sitting nearby with a gun, that person has got some serious explaining to do. Claiming self defense is a hard sell in light of the fact Zimmerman was already harrassing Martin by following him against police instruction. You seem to think Zimmerman was somehow permitted or authorized to do this. Imagine you witnessed your wife, daughter or son walking along on the sidewalk, maybe you're waiting to pick them up, and a car is slowly following them....would you be perfectly fine with that? Now imagine someone you care about winds up dead, the shooter says your son, daughter, friend attacked them and they defended themselves. Would you accept that explanation? I highly doubt it. You'd expect the shooter to be able to prove, at least show compelling evidence to support the self defense claim. Zimmerman's back was wet and grass-stained (it had rained and he was sitting in grass when police arrived), he claimed to have been struck repeatedly, enough so to fear for his life, yet there is very little evidence showing these injuries. Neither Martin or Zimmerman display physical signs of a beating. A witness claims Martin was slamming Zimmerman's head down, but the EMTs didn't take Zimmerman in for any concussion analysis.
So many elements of this simply don't add up, and just the established pursuit of Martin should be sufficient for investigators to hold Zimmerman in questioning until he sufficiently proves lethal force was justified. Remember, you're innocent until proven guilty in court…the police questioning room is not the courtroom.
So early reports were that the initial investigator wanted to prosecute, but was overruled by a superior...did that change? Anyone know of confirmation of this, one way or the other?

plaidvillain wrote: So early reports were that the initial investigator wanted to prosecute, but was overruled by a superior...did that change? Anyone know of confirmation of this, one way or the other?

Florida prosecutors overruled a police detective's recommendation to charge George Zimmerman with manslaughter in the death Trayvon Martin, ABC News reported.

Chris Serino, the lead homicide detective on the case, recommended charging Zimmerman the night the neighborhood watch volunteer shot and killed Martin, an unarmed teenager, in a gated community in Sanford, Fla., ABC reported Tuesday, citing sources it did not name. The network said Serino was instructed not to charge Zimmerman after the office of Brevard and Seminole county prosecutor Norman Wolfinger concluded there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the case.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/03/27/Report-Detective-wanted-Zimmerman-charged/UPI-41991332833400/

You still think the cops were "pigs"?

pineinthegrass wrote:

plaidvillain wrote: So early reports were that the initial investigator wanted to prosecute, but was overruled by a superior...did that change? Anyone know of confirmation of this, one way or the other?

Florida prosecutors overruled a police detective's recommendation to charge George Zimmerman with manslaughter in the death Trayvon Martin, ABC News reported.

Chris Serino, the lead homicide detective on the case, recommended charging Zimmerman the night the neighborhood watch volunteer shot and killed Martin, an unarmed teenager, in a gated community in Sanford, Fla., ABC reported Tuesday, citing sources it did not name. The network said Serino was instructed not to charge Zimmerman after the office of Brevard and Seminole county prosecutor Norman Wolfinger concluded there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the case.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/03/27/Report-Detective-wanted-Zimmerman-charged/UPI-41991332833400/

You still think the cops were "pigs"?

Otter Voice: Don't stop him, he is on a roll.

Since there are so many questions unanswered on this, many people are not convinced that Zimmerman's account is entirely truthful. He had just shot someone and his version is to be questioned because the last thing most of us want is for people to walk around armed and chase someone who has done nothing wrong only to end up killing them.

If Zimmerman had a right to self defense, didn't Martin as well? Zimmerman was armed and had exited his vehicle to chase Martin. Words were exchanged, but do you know that Martin threw the first punch? Zimmerman claimed he was close to passing out and death, yet no hospital visit?

It sounds so fishy, that's why there is outrage over the shody investigation? If the Sanford police would have treated this as a manslaughter case from the get go, there wouldn't be so many questions.

And PS, I don't give a flying f()ck what you think.

Soulshiner wrote: Since there are so many questions unanswered on this, many people are not convinced that Zimmerman's account is entirely truthful. He had just shot someone and his version is to be questioned because the last thing most of us want is for people to walk around armed and chase someone who has done nothing wrong only to end up killing them.

If Zimmerman had a right to self defense, didn't Martin as well? Zimmerman was armed and had exited his vehicle to chase Martin. Words were exchanged, but do you know that Martin threw the first punch? Zimmerman claimed he was close to passing out and death, yet no hospital visit?

It sounds so fishy, that's why there is outrage over the shody investigation? If the Sanford police would have treated this as a manslaughter case from the get go, there wouldn't be so many questions.

And PS, I don't give a flying f()ck what you think.

Well, the chief police investigator did consider this a manslaughter case.

I'm not aware of George Zimmerman claiming he was close to passing out in the police report. I think that is coming from his brother's interview.

So far as having a right to self defense and the use of lethal force goes, I'm not sure any of us knows the answer and that's what the prosecuter needs to decide. Generally you need to be convinced you face death or great bodily harm (there are other justifiable uses of deadly force which don't apply here like stopping a rape). Just being chased by someone wouldn't meet that criteria IMO unless you see or know the person chasing you has a deadly weapon. I saw a Florida document about this (which I can't find now) and they gave an example of two neighbors argueing and getting into a fight. One neighbor strikes the other with a garden hose. In that example it said you cannot use deadly force because a garden hose is not a deadly weapon. Now, does the fact that Zimmerman had a deadly weapon apply even though Martin didn't know it at the time of the chase?

Zimmerman apparently claims that once the fight started, Martin saw his gun (I know Zimmerman's father said this, not sure if it's in the police report but think it is). Once a gun is seen I think you reach the point where deadly force can be used. But from what I've read, if you initiated the fight you can't use deadly force, though I'd guess you could if the guy you attacked pulls out a gun which you didn't know he had. If that's true, either Martin or Zimmerman could of used deadly force once Zimmerman's gun was discovered. But I'm just guessing which I also think is the case with most of us here.

PER THE ORLANDO SENTINEL.......two forensic voice analysis experts have CONCURRED that the voice on the 911 tape calling for
help was MARTIN......going to be interesting to see just how Z.'s attys will defend this additional piece of information.... :pop

There goes the Neighborhood Watch program.

Gee, the well-constructed fabrication of Zimmerman's vigilantism by the extreme-right media seems to be crumbling by the hour...

I'm glad they've got [an allegedly] tough independent prosecutor digging for actual FACTS.

LadyJazzer wrote: I'm glad they've got [an allegedly] tough independent prosecutor digging for actual FACTS.

Me, too.

pineinthegrass wrote: Well, the chief police investigator did consider this a manslaughter case.

It's murder, it's not a crime of passion unless he passionatly hated black kids in hoodies..