Neighborhood watch captain shoots innocent black youth and doesn't even get arrested

[Bump]

http://news.yahoo.com/family-florida...044537742.html




ORLANDO, Florida (Reuters) - The family of a 17-year-old African-American boy shot to death last month in his gated Florida community by a white Neighborhood Watch captain wants to see the captain arrested, the family's lawyer said on Wednesday.

Trayvon Martin was shot dead after he took a break from watching NBA All-Star game television coverage to walk 10 minutes to a convenience store to buy snacks including Skittles candy requested by his 13-year-old brother, Chad, the family's lawyer Ben Crump said.

"He was a good kid," Crump said in an interview, adding that the family would issue a call for the Watch captain's arrest at a news conference on Thursday. "On his way home, a Neighborhood Watch loose cannon shot and killed him."

[Related: Fla. teen avoids deportation]

Trayvon, who lived in Miami with his mother, had been visiting his father and stepmother in a gated townhome community called The Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford, 20 miles north of Orlando.

As Trayvon returned to the townhome, Sanford police received a 911 call reporting a suspicious person.

Although names are blacked out on the police report, Crump and media reports at the time of the shooting identified the caller as George Zimmerman who is listed in the community's newsletter as the Neighborhood Watch captain.

Without waiting for police to arrive, Crump said, Zimmerman confronted Trayvon, who was on the sidewalk near his home. By the time police got there, Trayvon was dead of a single gunshot to the chest.

"What do the police find in his pocket? Skittles," Crump said. "A can of Arizona ice tea in his jacket pocket and Skittles in his front pocket for his brother Chad."

Zimmerman could not be reached for comment on Wednesday evening at a phone number listed for him on the community's newsletter.

Crump said the family was concerned that police might decide to consider the shooting as self defense, and that police have ignored the family's request for a copy of the original 911 call, which they think will shed light on the incidents.

"If the 911 protocol across the country held to form here, they told him not to get involved. He disobeyed that order," said Ryan Julison, a spokesman for the family.

"He (Zimmerman) didn't have to get out of his car," said Crump, who has prepared a public records lawsuit to file on Thursday if the family doesn't get the 911 tape. "If he never gets out of his car, there is no reason for self-defense. Trayvon only has skittles. He has the gun."

Since Trayvon, a high school junior who wanted to be a pilot, was black and Zimmerman is white, Crump said race is "the 600 pound elephant in the room."

"Why is this kid suspicious in the first place? I think a stereotype must have been placed on the kid," Crump said.

(Editing By Cynthia Johnston and Peter Bohan)

[go bo]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

No one has come out and said it was zmmerman's voice to my knowledge as of yet.

I think most people just reported to hear 'someone' screaming....

But just like Zimmerman being 'white' and trayvon martin being a 'good kid' I'm sure there will be no mistakes by the media.

LOL

surely you aren't suggesting that it was ok to kill martin because he was a "good kid" are you?

even the most despicable lowlifes and/or hardened criminals don't deserve to be summarily killed over a fist fight...

[go bo]

Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini

You ever done extacy through your ass? It feels good man.

no my ass is still too tender from that hard lovin' i got from billay last time...

oh, wait...

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I gave an answer that it's beyond a bloody nose and grass stains a long time ago. I'm not saying the law should be re-written. I agree that you can't spell out the specific injuries that are allowable and those that are not. Is that the point you've been trying to prove this whole time?

If you can't spell out the allowable specifics, you can't spell out the non-allowable specifics. It's really that simple. What's going on here is two groups of dumbasses on the "he's guilty!" side.

1.) dumbasses saying "I can't tell you what reasonable is because I don't know the facts, but that wasn't reasonable".

3.) dumbasses saying that no set of circumstances would warrant an armed man shooting an unarmed man.

[go bo]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

His nose was broken, not just bloody.

well, that makes all the difference...

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by DaFace

(Regardless, I'm done with this argument. It's not adding any value at this point.)

I agree its not adding any value. It isn't possible for what she is saying to be true. She will not and can not be a 'witness' to this. There are only two possibilities 1) She is a liar or 2) The media got it wrong.

I'm going to to out on a limb and guess that it is number 2.

A more plausible scenario is that she said "i heard someone screaming right before he got shot" where she assumed that whoever she heard screaming was the same person who got shot.

Then perhaps the police (stupidly) corrected her and said "no ma'am that was the shooter who was screaming"

Instead of a better question like "are you sure it was the same person who was shot that was screaming? 100% Sure?"

In any case there is no possible way she identified Trayvon Martin's voice, as the yahoo article suggested, but if you wish to take that as the "truth" and base your world on it, go for it breh.

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by go bowe

well, that makes all the difference...

Not saying it does or doesn't, but if people are talking about drawing a line, then don't you have to be factually specific and draw the line exact?

[go bo]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

If you can't spell out the allowable specifics, you can't spell out the non-allowable specifics. It's really that simple.

so what?

since when has the law of regarding self-defense ever spelled out allowable vs. non-allowable specifics?

other than the use of a weapon or the like (zimmerman) hasn't the standard always been that of a reasonable man and not whether 1 finger or 2 were broken or whether a nose is bloody or *gasp* broken?

would a reasonable man in those circumstances have been in fear for his life because he got his nose broken? mr. z wouldn't want me on his jury...

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by go bowe

so what?

since when has the law of regarding self-defense ever spelled out allowable vs. non-allowable specifics?

other than the use of a weapon or the like (zimmerman) hasn't the standard always been that of a reasonable man and not whether 1 finger or 2 were broken or whether a nose is bloody or *gasp* broken?

would a reasonable man in those circumstances have been in fear for his life because he got his nose broken? mr. z wouldn't want me on his jury...

The facts of the case aren't in, so you taking that position just shows that you're either too prejudiced or too stupid to sit on the jury.

[Setsuna]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

I might agree if he wasn't so neutral about it. He pretty much just said he wanted to make sure justice was done. He didn't say anything about the case specifically.

Of course he said that...but if he comes out innocent. He will raise hell or he loses all his black votes instantly.

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by go bowe

would a reasonable man in those circumstances have been in fear for his life because he got his nose broken? mr. z wouldn't want me on his jury...

Perhaps if that was the only factor. What if his nose was broken, and martin had him pinned on the ground so he couldnt get up?

What if he was worried about martin pulling the gun out of his waistband?

At what point do you give him the OK to fear for his life?

What do you think you are going to be able to convict Zimmerman of?

If you (or someone else who was pre-convinced of his guilt) were "on this jury" it really wouldn't matter because it only takes one person with a reasonable doubt as to his guilt to hang the jury. But, thankfully there are ways of getting people like you off of juries.

[go bo]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

Not saying it does or doesn't, but if people are talking about drawing a line, then don't you have to be factually specific and draw the line exact?

nope, see my response just above...

the only line is whether a reasonable person would actually fear for their life under similar circumstances...

and that "line" changes with the circumstances; all the circumstances including the nature of the perceived threat, injuries sustained, whether there was a weapon involved, who initiated the confrontation (not just who threw the first punch) etc.

[go bo]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

The facts of the case aren't in, so you taking that position just shows that you're either too prejudiced or too stupid to sit on the jury.

i'd vote for too stupid...

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by go bowe

nope, see my response just above...

the only line is whether a reasonable person would actually fear for their life under similar circumstances...

False, quit spreading misinformation, you idiot.

[whoman69]

Originally Posted by jspchief

By Zimmermans own 911 call, we know that Martin ran.

So if someone is chasing him, doesn't he have a right to defend himself? It sounds to me increasingly like Zimmerman was the one that forced the confrontation and then claims self defense.

[go bo]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

The facts of the case aren't in, so you taking that position just shows that you're either too prejudiced or too stupid to sit on the jury.

oh, i've been on a jury so maybe i'm prejudiced instead...

what pray tell am i being prejudiced about?

that the law requires a reasonable man standard for determining whether someone reasonably feared for their life before using deadly force?

that taking the "facts" as presented by those who seem to think the kid deserved to die and comparing them to a reasonable man standard?

or am i prejudiced because martin was black and zimmerman wasn't?

of course before now i have not mentioned martin's color because i don't view it as a terribly important fact in this situation...

no-one can reasonably claim that they feel their life was threatened because the other guy was black nor can anybody reasonably claim that martin was killed because he was black...

the issue of why he was killed, the issue of the reasonableness of zimmeran's alleged fear for his life under those circumstances is an issue which should be decided by a jury, preferably a jury of stupid people...