Florida legalizes murder: Trayvon Martin

**Bneterasedmynam** · Posted On: 3/13/2012 9:27am

Ok so apparently it's ok in Florida to gun someone down just so long as there are no witnesses. Just call it self defense and you will be automatically ok. Oh it also helps if your victim is black:

Answers remain in short supply as to why an unarmed teenager was shot and killed two weeks ago.

Trayvon Martin, 17, was walking toward his father's home in a gated community in Sanford, Florida, around sunset on February 26.

The neighborhood watch captain, 28-year-old George Zimmerman, saw the teen on the property and called 911.

According to CNN affiliate WFTV, Zimmerman, who is white, described Martin as a suspicious black man to a dispatcher.

Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee said the 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman not to confront Martin, but by the time police arrived, the teenager lay dead with a gunshot wound in the chest. He was carrying a small amount of cash, some candy and an iced tea.

Zimmerman told police he shot Martin in self-defense, but that doesn't sit well with Martin's parents.

"When you add it up, it just doesn't even make sense," said Ben Crump, the Martin family's attorney. "Trayvon Martin, a kid, has a bag of Skittles. [Zimmerman] had a 9mm gun. Trayvon Martin didn't approach George Zimmerman, George Zimmerman approached Trayvon Martin. So how can he now assert self defense?"

Police say a gunshot can be heard on the 911 calls recorded that night.

Sanford police said Monday the calls will not be made public until the investigation is complete, but the Martin family is pushing for the tapes to be released sooner.

"It will tell us why [Zimmerman] just disregarded, just ignored the police instructions when they tell him to stay put, they'll be there in a few minutes. On those 911 tapes is going to tell you why he said he's not going to follow their instructions. And most importantly, it's going to tell us his mentality when he confronted this 17-year-old kid," Crump said.

Here's a link to the article: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/12/justic...hot/?hpt=hp_t2

I just don't understand how this could possibly be anything other than outright murder.

**PointyShinyBurn** · Posted On: 3/13/2012 9:46am

Police said they have not charged Zimmerman because there are no grounds to disprove his story of what happened.

"The evidence and testimony we have so far does not establish that Mr. Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. We don't have anything to dispute his claim of self-defense, at this point, with the evidence and testimony that we have"

That reads very oddly to me. Self defence is the textbook affirmative defence, i.e. the defence has to prove it, the prosecution and plods don't have to disprove it before they can arrest and charge.

**Devil** · Posted On: 3/13/2012 10:19am

Somebody's kid gets killed and they say, "He was a good boy." Gee, I've never heard that before.

Your story is incomplete. The shooter was bloodied when the police arrived and he was wet as if he had been on his back in the grass. He claims he was yelling for help but nobody came.

The officers on the scene obviously saw evidence of self defense or the guy would be in custody. But you want to assume Florida has legalized murder because this kid's parents and a lawyer say he was just a good boy minding his own business.

Just because he went outside doesn't make him guilty. He's allowed to go in his own yard. That doesn't mean he ran outside with the intention of shooting the guy. What makes you think people should blindly obey what some 911 dispatcher tells them? There was a kid in NC a couple months back who killed an intruder and some dumbass dispatcher told him to put his gun down even though the intruder turned out not to be alone.

Way to buy into kneejerk sensationalism.

**itwasntme** · Posted On: 3/13/2012 10:22am

Wow, I can only imagine how the parents of this child are feeling right now. Can't say this really surprises me though. And they wonder why anybody would have a hard time putting their trust in the police force.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9650 using Tapatalk

**Devil** · Posted On: 3/13/2012 10:27am

What makes you assume the shooting wasn't justified? Because the kid wasn't armed? You are aware you're allowed to defend yourself with deadly force if your life is in danger, weapon or not, right?

If you're going to assume, why not assume the guy was mounted and getting beaten to death before he fired his weapon?

**slamdunc** · Posted On: 3/13/2012 10:42am

Originally Posted by Bneterasedmynam

Sanford police said Monday the calls will not be made public until the investigation is complete, but the Martin family is pushing for the tapes to be released sooner.

So, the investigation is not complete as yet?

Originally Posted by Bneterasedmynam

I just don't understand how this could possibly be anything other than outright murder.

Hopefully, once the investigation is completed, the majority will be satisfied by the outcome. At this point, it would appear that without any witnesses, video or other physical evidence, the shooter could well walk. With any of the aforementioned, the only way to build a case is by inconsistent statements by the shooter or an outright confession.

**PointyShinyBurn** · Posted On: 3/13/2012 10:48am

Originally Posted by Devil

Your story is incomplete. The shooter was bloodied when the police arrived and he was wet as if he had been on his back in the grass.

Being beaten down before the shooting wouldn't necessarily make it self defence if he initiated a confrontation. Which it seems he must have done in some sense.

Originally Posted by Devil

The officers on the scene obviously saw evidence of self defense or the guy would be in custody.

Well, no, that's exactly the allegation. They they saw the setup of old white guy vs young black dude and jumped straight to a conclusion.

**PointyShinyBurn** · Posted On: 3/13/2012 10:50am

Originally Posted by slamdunc

At this point, it would appear that without any witnesses, video or other physical evidence, the shooter could well walk. With any of the aforementioned, the only way to build a case is by inconsistent statements by the shooter or an outright confession.

That's not correct, there seems to be no debate he shot the kid. If he doesn't have some positive grounds to indicate self defence then he could certainly be convicted. You don't get to create reasonable doubt by just going "It was self defence, he came right at me!" otherwise no one could ever be convicted of murder unless it was caught on film.

**Devil** · Posted On: 3/13/2012 10:56am

Originally Posted by PointyShinyBurn

Being beaten down before the shooting wouldn't necessarily make it self defence if he initiated a confrontation. Which it seems he must have done in some sense.
Well, no, that's exactly the allegation. They they saw the setup of old white guy vs young black dude and jumped straight to a conclusion.

You're assuming again. The evidence is what it is at this point. Why read into it more and assume everyone involved is an incompetent liar or murderer?

Just because he went outside doesn't mean he initiated any violent confrontation. Maybe he saw the guy just as you do - a kid. Maybe he went outside to shoo the kid out of his yard, which is within his right and the kid attacked him violently.

Maybe he's an overagressive murderer, but there's no reason to believe that when we have way less information than the cops on the scene.

Or you can just continue making up **** in your mind and assuming it's right because it just seems like that's how it surely must be.

**Diesel_tke** · Posted On: 3/13/2012 11:01am

This is why I don't like neiborhood watches. Some dude runs around thinking that he is some kind of vigalante, sticking his nose where it doesn't belong. This ends up hapening, and it all would have been avoided if the stupid guy would have stayed home playing pinochle and greasing his hemorrhoids.

I will look forward to the full investigation, but until then, **** that dude!