Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

[kiki5711]

Coito ergo sum wrote:There is no evidence for any of that. One, there was no neighborhood watch training that was disregarded by virtue of Z leaving his vehicle, or following Martin. None. If you have something to that effect, link to it or provide a source.

By thump:

From the pamphlet (https://www.bja.gov/publications/nsa_nw_manual.pdf) handed out by the Department of Justice:

and from the manual provided by COITO: http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/ ... ndbook.pdf

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito ergo sum wrote:There is no evidence for any of that. One, there was no neighborhood watch training that was disregarded by virtue of Z leaving his vehicle, or following Martin. None. If you have something to that effect, link to it or provide a source.

By thump:

From the pamphlet (https://www.bja.gov/publications/nsa_nw_manual.pdf) handed out by the Department of Justice:

and from the manual provided by COITO: http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/ ... ndbook.pdf

Yes. Exactly as I said. Neither of those items says that a neighborhood watchman can't or shouldn't get out of his vehicle, or can't keep a suspicious person in his field of vision.

Please cite the portion of the policies you think he violated by getting out of his truck.

[Coito ergo sum]

So the Ratz gun lobby thinks it is perfectly within the law for armed individuals to patrol their neighborhood and confront anyone they feel like?

And these are the laws you want where your kids play and people enjoy the outdoors?

Even this Ratzian, who has never owned a gun, thinks it is perfectly within the law for a person who is lawfully permitted to carry a firearm to carry that firearm, and despite the fact that he or she is carrying a firearm, he or she may ask another individual what they are doing in the neighborhood. They don't lose that right by virtue of being armed.

Frankly, it's not that anyone "thinks" it's within the law. It most certainly IS within the law. A good clue to that fact is that prosecutor Corey did not charge Zimmerman with "armed patrol of the neighborhood."

But, of course, if you are aware of a law which is violated by armed patrol of a neighborhood, reporting suspicious people and asking their purpose for being somewhere, well, feel free to cite the law. Laws are written down. Here in the US we don't have a system of "this doesn't feel right, and therefore it must be illegal."

[Coito ergo sum]

There is no evidence for any of that. One, there was no neighborhood watch training that was disregarded by virtue of Z leaving his vehicle, or following Martin. None. If you have something to that effect, link to it or provide a source.

From the pamphlet handed out by the Department of Justice:



Also:

When the Retreat at Twin Lakes community told Sanford police it wanted to start a neighborhood watch, city volunteer program coordinator Wendy Dorival spoke to them in September 2011.

Her PowerPoint presentation, and a neighborhood watch manual the city makes available, both make clear: Don't confront.

"The philosophy is, 'No weapons. Don't confront. Call the police,' " Dorival said Wednesday.

**********

Excerpts from Neighborhood Watch manuals:

"What you will not do is get physically involved with any activity you report or apprehension of any suspicious persons. This is the job of the law enforcement agency." -- City of Sanford (where Trayvon Martin slaying occurred)

"Neighborhood Watch is an observe and report type of program. Neighborhood Watch members are encouraged not to stop and question people, but to observe and report their observations to the Sheriff's Office and a trained officer will respond and investigate the incident." -- Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office

"It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles. They should also be cautioned to alert police or deputies when encountering strange activity. Members should never confront suspicious persons who could be armed and dangerous." -- National Sheriff's Association

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime ... 52704.html

Although it's unclear that the organization there was even chartered formally as a Neighborhood Watch program, from that same article.

There is no evidence supporting your assertion. Period.

Clearly, one will always say "more evidence may come in," but right now, there is no evidence what you just alleged he "disregarded."

There is, as shown above. You were simply unaware of it. But the DoJ saw fit to give that point emphasis by placing it in a blocked off section of its own page.

Nope. You're moving the goalposts. You specifically said he violated the rules BY GETTING OUT OF HIS VEHICLE. Nothing you posted says he's not supposed to get out of his vehicle.

And, nothing in the facts establish clearly that he "confronted" Martin. There is fairly vague testimony of the girlfriend, but that is it. I've never claimed Z could not possibly have confronted or initiated a confrontation with Martin -- I've merely asserted that there is doubt.

And about the gun -- Dorivol says that is their policy, but there is nothing in the written material to that effect, and nothing to show that Zimmerman was ever told that. And, of course, it's not unlawful for him to have been carrying a gun, regardless. Exhibit A: He wasn't charged with any crime for having a gun while on neighborhood watch.

That takes the girlfriend's report too far. She doesn't know. She only knows that Martin said "why are you chasing me?" And, Zimmerman said "why are you in the neightborhood." She can't possibly know, based on what she said she heard, who "initiated" the confrontation.

Here is a portion of her interview with the local prosecutor:

PROSECUTOR: I am sorry, Trayvon said he was not running because—-he’s not going to run he said because you could tell he was tired? How could you tell he was tired?
GIRLFRIEND: He was breathing hard.
PROSECUTOR: Real hard?
GIRLFRIEND: Real hard. And then he told me this guy was getting close! He told me the guy was getting real close to him. And the next I hear is, ‘Why are you following me for?’
PROSECUTOR: OK. Let me make sure I understand this so, Trayvon tells you the guy is getting closer to him and then you hear Trayvon saying something.
GIRLFRIEND: Yeah.
PROSECUTOR: And what do you hear Trayvon saying?
GIRLFRIEND: ‘Why are you following me for?’
PROSECUTOR: ‘Why are you following me for?’
GIRLFRIEND: Yeah.
PROSECUTOR: And then what happened?
GIRLFRIEND: I heard this man, like an old man say, ‘What are you doing around here?’
PROSECUTOR: OK, so you definitely could tell another voice that was not Trayvon and you heard this other voice say what?
GIRLFRIEND: ‘What are you doing around here?’

http://www.michaelbutler.com/blog/civic ... th-police/

Clearly, she's reporting that she could hear Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman was following Martin. Martin turned around, asked why he was being followed ... but according to Martin's girlfriend, Zimmerman was following Martin.

That is certainly some evidence, for what it's worth, and we'll hear the full testimony at trial, which, of course, has "evolved." But, that's not determinative, is it? That testimony will have to be put in context of where the incident ultimately happened, how far that would have been for Martin to run, etc. In other words, it's his girlfriends testimony, and doesn't establish that Zimmerman ran him down beyond a reasonable doubt. The above snippet was taken after the Martin family legal team had already gotten ahold of her. Recall that initially she would only talk to the attorneys who recorded her statement -- the attorneys representing Martin's family.

I don't wholly discount her testimony, and it does constitute "evidence," which will be admissible in court. But, if that's the best they have, can you really say that there is no reasonable doubt?

By side, what do you mean? Therethe "Zimmerman is a murderer" side, and the "there is reasonable doubt as to whether Zimmerman is a murderer, or at least it isn't at all clear that he is a murderer," side. It seems you are on the latter side.

The way I've seen the discussion break down, one side thinks Zimmerman was a murderer, and one side doesn't.

Well, I know for myself, and for FBM, Warren Dew, etc. we've said nothing of the kind. We've said there is presently reasonable doubt. I couldn't convict him of murder based on what we know. Could you?

I personally think that at the very least he was guilty of terrible judgement

Well, to be clear on where we are in agreement -- I can certainly agree to that. I think anyone who sits in his car at night monitoring the neighborhood is using terrible judgment. One doesn't know if the person one thinks is suspicious is actually armed.

in pursuing a confrontation despite his training and the advice of the dispatcher.

Really, isn't whether he "pursued a confrontation" in doubt, given the reasonable possibility that he exited his vehicle to (a) get a house number for the cops, and (b) to try to keep Martin in his line of vision so that he could identify him for the cops and be able to say he never lost sight of Martin (thereby making it harder for Martin to claim that he wasn't the same person Zimmerman saw initially)?

Whether his negligent judgement rises to the level of criminal negligence is for the jury to decide, because they will access facts in the case that we onlookers won't have.

He hasn't been charged with criminal negligence. It's not before the jury, unless they add that to the indictment.

Yes, but you're making a false equivalence. Me, FBM, etc., are not claiming Zimmerman is innocent. We're claiming the evidence is unclear or there is reasonable doubt. So, what's nonsensical or "more heat than light" about that? You appear to agree with that. The other side, the kiki, maiforpeace, etc. side, are stating very unequivocally that he is a murderer, and not only that, but a psycho, paranoid, gun-nut, among other things.

The misstatement you made above, for instance, which was didactic and not admissive of any uncertainty, while it was clearly wrong, gives me cause to question your other claims, just as I question those who disagree with you.

I'm not following you. Could you please highlight for me the "misstatement?" You mean my statement that him "getting out of the vehicle was not against neighborhood watch rules?" That isn't a misstatement. OTHER THINGS HE MIGHT HAVE DONE -- for example, if he did initiate a "confrontation" with Martin - that would seem to be in violation of the rules you cited. But, the mere fact of getting out of the vehicle? No way.

I'm not saying that your mistakes are on a par with those you listed from Mai, Kiki, and others, but the fact is you listed them already and they needed no further airing in my post. You've made good points on some of the fallacies being pandered, for whatever my opinion is worth here.

Now it's "mistakes" plural? You only alleged one, as far as I can see, and I think it's a question of talking past each other. It seems there is a communication problem sometimes, where like, I take issue with a specific statement, and then people think that means I take issue with something else.

The fact remains also, that the position I have held is that there is reasonable doubt now. Also, there was no evidence, initially, that the cops were racially motivated in not arresting Zimmerman in the first place (which was more nonsense spouted by the "cut Zimmerman's nuts off" lobby). I also took the position that the police did likely investigate on the night of the murder, and that it was reasonable not to arrest Z that night. But, I ALSO said that had the cops arrested him that night, it would not have been an injustice, based on what we know. The cops had a wide latitude of discretion based on the facts. That does appear to have been born out.

I still hold that "getting out of his vehicle" was not ipso facto a vitiation of self-defense, and was not in violation of any particular neighborhood watch rule that we have and/or can attribute to Zimmerman. Some person in Broward County speaking to the press is not attributable to Zimmerman, for example. And, the two policies we have read, Sanford and the DOJ, don't contain a prohibition on exiting a vehicle. Notice that the dispatcher did not say "get back in your car, please," and he was not charged with any offense of "exiting a vehicle while armed on neighborhood watch" offense.

But clearly you missed doing something as basic as googling the handout the DoJ gives the Neighborhood Watch before you made a bald claim about its contents. What other statements made here, on both sides, are this baseless?

I looked up -- I was the first one to post, in fact - the Sanford handbook. Everyone else was spouting off about what "all neighborhood watches are trained to do" and not a one of them looked up what the rules were in Sanford. So, forgive me if I call bullshit on your "you missed something as basic as" comment." I love that -- I am the one who actually looked up the handbook, and linked to it, and I noticed you didn't point out the fact that the "hang Zimmerman" crowd didn't bother to do that, and merely continue to speak about their "feelings" on the issue.

Moreover, you're right, I did not look up the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE handbook. However, you're wrong when you say that the DOJ "gives the Neighborhood Watch [the handbook]..." Where do you get that? The DOJ does not distribute that to local neighborhood watches. The DOJ has it available, but it isn't something that they distribute to the Sanford locality. Sanford has their own handbook.

And, more importantly, neither one of them say that a neighborhood watchman may not exit his vehicle. Of course it doesn't. You know why? Because neighborhood watchmen are allowed to travel on foot. Did you "miss" that part? If Zimmerman walked out of his house and walked around the neighborhood, he would have been acting fully in accord with the handbooks you posted. So, he doesn't become a violator of the handbook rules by driving his car to one part of the neighborhood and getting out, and he doesn't violate any rule in the handbook by seeing a suspicious person and then exiting his vehicle. Can you please at least acknowledge that?

That was the point of my post, and I hope you don't take it personally, because it's not meant that way at all.

No, you're just wrong about it. Again, if you think it is a violation of the handbooks for Zimmerman to have gotten out of his vehicle, please cite the provision.

Of course, the fact that he was not in violation for exiting his vehicle doesn't mean that he wouldn't be in violation for starting a fight or something, or "confronting" Martin. But, you have to admit, the mere fact of getting out of the vehicle was not a violation, and that is what I said.

[Tyrannical]

Some new rumors going around the internet on Trayvon.

It wasn't ice tea Trayvon had, but Arizona Ice Tea company Watermelon fruit punch. Watermelon punch and skittles are the local popular ingredients for mixing with DXM cough syrup, AKA purple drank that Trayvon was a fan of according to his forum posts. The rumors also question if the toxicology report tested for DXM.

That would certainly explain a few things. Tyrayvon already high on DXM goes to buy more mixer. He appears drugged like Zimmerman thought, and than high on drugs irrationally attacked Zimmerman.

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

[Coito ergo sum]

I also never said he was a murderer. I said he was a bit on paranoid side, seeing things and interpreting them in a way, that may be just in his own mind/delusion, out of anger, or whatever issues he might have.

So, is there reasonable doubt at the present time as to whether he is guilty of the crimes charged? In your view, based on the information you know?

And it is a FACT that he is on mood altering medication, that if mixed with alcohol can have very negative side effect. I am not saying he drank, but obviously he had some emotional issues, which is a dangerous time to carry a gun around.

It's funny that you say this.

I have a concern about this case that is in line with your statement.

Do me a favor and google the audiotape of the Zimmerman 911 call. Am I the only one who listens to that and thinks that Zimmerman sounds a little drunk?

I wonder if they tested his blood alcohol level that night.

[kiki5711]

specifically from your posted handbook:

What you will not do is get physically involved with any activity you report or apprehension of any suspicious persons. This is the job of law enforcement agency.
Heroes can be wounded or killed. Remember that apprehension is the job of your police department.
Your police department, appreciates you acting as their extra eyes and ears. Sometimes your suspicions are unfounded. If you are wrong, they understand you will not always be right. As a good citizen and a neighborhood watch participant, your job is to give them information, you base your suspicions on.

coite said: Nope. You're moving the goalposts. You specifically said he violated the rules BY GETTING OUT OF HIS VEHICLE. Nothing you posted says he's not supposed to get out of his vehicle.

What part of "remember that apprehension is the job of your police department" do you NOT understand. Getting out of the vehicle and apprehending martin was not his job and would have prevented a martin being shot.

ap·pre·hen·sion
noun \ˌa-pri-ˈhen(t)-shən\
Definition of APPREHENSION
1
a : the act or power of perceiving or comprehending <a person of dull apprehension> b : the result of apprehending mentally : conception <according to popular apprehension>
2
: seizure by legal process : arrest <apprehension of a criminal>
3
: suspicion or fear especially of future evil : foreboding <an atmosphere of nervous apprehension>

See apprehension defined for English-language learners »
See apprehension defined for kids »
Examples of APPREHENSION

Origin of APPREHENSION
Middle English, from Late Latin apprehension-, apprehensio, from Latin apprehendere
First Known Use: 14th century
Related to APPREHENSION
Synonyms: alarm (also alarum), apprehensiveness, dread, foreboding, misgiving
Antonyms: discharge

[FBM]

Some new rumors going around the internet on Trayvon.

It wasn't ice tea Trayvon had, but Arizona Ice Tea company Watermelon fruit punch. Watermelon punch and skittles are the local popular ingredients for mixing with DXM cough syrup, AKA purple drank that Trayvon was a fan of according to his forum posts. The rumors also question if the toxicology report tested for DXM.

That would certainly explain a few things. Tyrayvon already high on DXM goes to buy more mixer. He appears drugged like Zimmerman thought, and than high on drugs irrationally attacked Zimmerman.

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

Not sure how more internet rumors are going to be very helpful or illuminating.

[kiki5711]

kiki5711 wrote:
And it is a FACT that he is on mood altering medication, that if mixed with alcohol can have very negative side effect. I am not saying he drank, but obviously he had some emotional issues, which is a dangerous time to carry a gun around.

It's funny that you say this.

I have a concern about this case that is in line with your statement.

Do me a favor and google the audiotape of the Zimmerman 911 call. Am I the only one who listens to that and thinks that Zimmerman sounds a little drunk?

I wonder if they tested his blood alcohol level that night.

I've listened to that audiotape a thousand times. A person that consumes alcohol with meds, does not always sound drunk, nor do they slur their words,(unless they're really stoned) but in their mind, they are a thousand different things that might be going on, and paranoia and agression, is one of them.

[Coito ergo sum]

specifically from your posted handbook:

What you will not do is get physically involved with any activity you report or apprehension of any suspicious persons. This is the job of law enforcement agency.
Heroes can be wounded or killed. Remember that apprehension is the job of your police department.
Your police department, appreciates you acting as their extra eyes and ears. Sometimes your suspicions are unfounded. If you are wrong, they understand you will not always be right. As a good citizen and a neighborhood watch participant, your job is to give them information, you base your suspicions on.

"Getting out of the car." That isn't "apprehension." The assertion we were discussing was whether getting out of the fucking car was against the rules. Can you just admit that it isn't, instead of citing SOME OTHER RULE?

coite said: Nope. You're moving the goalposts. You specifically said he violated the rules BY GETTING OUT OF HIS VEHICLE. Nothing you posted says he's not supposed to get out of his vehicle.

What part of "remember that apprehension is the job of your police department" do you NOT understand.

In your version of the English language, "getting out of the car" is "apprehension?" Please look up those words and try again. Christ, you can't be this dense.

Getting out of the vehicle and apprehending martin was not his job and would have prevented a martin being shot.

We know he got out of the car from the 911 tape. How do you know he "apprehended" Martin? Is there any doubt about whether he tried to apprehend?

ap·pre·hen·sion
noun \ˌa-pri-ˈhen(t)-shən\
Definition of APPREHENSION
1
a : the act or power of perceiving or comprehending <a person of dull apprehension> b : the result of apprehending mentally : conception <according to popular apprehension>
2
: seizure by legal process : arrest <apprehension of a criminal>
3
: suspicion or fear especially of future evil : foreboding <an atmosphere of nervous apprehension>

See apprehension defined for English-language learners »
See apprehension defined for kids »
Examples of APPREHENSION

Origin of APPREHENSION
Middle English, from Late Latin apprehension-, apprehensio, from Latin apprehendere
First Known Use: 14th century
Related to APPREHENSION
Synonyms: alarm (also alarum), apprehensiveness, dread, foreboding, misgiving
Antonyms: discharge

Right - getting out of a car is not "apprehending." Thanks for making that eminently clear.

[kiki5711]

Some new rumors going around the internet on Trayvon.

It wasn't ice tea Trayvon had, but Arizona Ice Tea company Watermelon fruit punch. Watermelon punch and skittles are the local popular ingredients for mixing with DXM cough syrup, AKA purple drank that Trayvon was a fan of according to his forum posts. The rumors also question if the toxicology report tested for DXM.

That would certainly explain a few things. Tyrayvon already high on DXM goes to buy more mixer. He appears drugged like Zimmerman thought, and than high on drugs irrationally attacked Zimmerman.

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

You don't need ice tea in any flavor to dumb down the bad flavor of cough syrup. Any juice or drink can be used for that. And if fact cough syrup makes you sluggish and relaxed not paranoid or agressive.

[kiki5711]

We know he got out of the car from the 911 tape. How do you know he "apprehended" Martin? Is there any doubt about whether he tried to apprehend?

you just posted a while back that zimm got out of his car and ran after him? you're contradicting yourself so much you don't even know what you're talking about.

If he didn't get out of his car, how in the hell did they end up fighting? It wasn't in front of zimmz car or in zimms car, it was away from it, in the back of someone's yard. If martin was running, away from the car, how did zimm catch up to him? Is he a superman and just popped on top of him.

[kiki5711]

"Getting out of the car." That isn't "apprehension." The assertion we were discussing was whether getting out of the fucking car was against the rules. Can you just admit that it isn't, instead of citing SOME OTHER RULE?

zimm didn't get out of his car and just stand there. so, no, getting out of the car is not against the rules but going after the "suspicious guy" is.

Holy mother of god, you can't be this dense.

[Coito ergo sum]

"Getting out of the car." That isn't "apprehension." The assertion we were discussing was whether getting out of the fucking car was against the rules. Can you just admit that it isn't, instead of citing SOME OTHER RULE?

zimm didn't get out of his car and just stand there. so, no, getting out of the car is not against the rules but going after the "suspicious guy" is.

Holy mother of god, you can't be this dense.

Look -- what was alleged was that getting out of his car was against the rules. Thank you for finally admitting that.

Of course doing other things, like attempting to apprehend Martin, could very well be against the rules. But, fucking bloody hell -- you don't KNOW he tried to do that. You can only ASSUME it. At a minimum, there are multiple reasonable possibilities that could have caused the altercation to occur.

And, also, "going after him" is also not against the rules. It is not against the rules to follow someone to keep an eye out for them, to observe them so that you can provide a good description to the cops, or to go out and look for addresses on the houses so you can coordinate with the cops. As far as we know, Zimmerman may have been doing those things. He may also have been trying to apprehend Martin. I don't know. You're the one claiming that you do know. You are sure he tried to apprehend Martin.

[Seth]

So the Ratz gun lobby thinks it is perfectly within the law for armed individuals to patrol their neighborhood and confront anyone they feel like?

Yup.

And these are the laws you want where your kids play and people enjoy the outdoors?

Yup.

Somebody "confronts" me in my neighborhood, armed or otherwise, saying "What are you doing here?" I politely say "I'm going about my lawful occasions here on this public street, is there a problem that I can help you with?"

If I were in a private community with "No Trespassing" signs, I'd say "Hi, I'm Seth, pleased to meet you. (offers hand for handshake) I'm here visiting so-and-so who lives over there in that blue house, is there a problem I can help you with?"

Politeness goes a long way towards defusing suspicion and hostility when one is visiting someone's private, gated community.