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

[Bump]

This is some ****ED UP SHIT, they aren't sure if the racist neighborhood watch idiot should be arrested? If anything, local gangs might take notice of this and start shooting up that neighborhood or just random white neighborhoods. I could never live in the south, it's ridiculous. The guy shoots an innocent teen walking to the store to buy skittles. Should be life in prison, that's cold blood man.

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)

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by whoman69

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.

It will all boil down to what the legal definition, and what the juror's definitions of 'forcing a confrontation' is.

Some people believe that just Zimmerman chasing after Trayvon asking him "Hey what are you doing here" is reason enough for Trayvon Martin to punch Zimmerman.

Some do not.

I'm going to guess that a jury pool might have the same mixed results.

I think everyone would agree that if Zimmerman put his hands on Martin, then Martin has the right to throw a punch.

It is the grey area of just being followed, or if perhaps Martin throws a punch and follows it up by getting on top of martin and wrestling with him where I think it gets harder to say.

For me personally, if the evidence showed that Zimmerman approached MArtin, and asked "hey what are you doing" and it was Martin who threw the 1st punch....then I don't really consider that an appropriate response by martin.

That's just me though.

[go bowe]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

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.

i don't know, i tried my best to get out of jury duty but they just didn't seem to care that i'd already decided the case and was prejudiced against both sides to boot...

[go bowe]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

False, quit spreading misinformation, you idiot.

well, if you say so...

i guess all those courts going back hundreds and hundreds of years were spreading misinformation when they applied the reasonable man standard to determine whether someone reasonably feared for their life before using deadly force...

oh and when you start paying me better i will do as you say and quit spreading things you don't like...

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by go bowe

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

No, actually they let stupid people on juries all the time:

See:

OJ Simpson
Casey ANthony

http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/...y_verdicts.php

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by go bowe

oh and when you start paying me better i will do as you say and quit spreading things ...

Go for it dawg, I know you enjoy being wrong and looking like a fool, you are probably naked and lubed up as you are typing.

[go bowe]

Originally Posted by whoman69

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.

pfffft...

are you too stupid or too prejudiced to see that zimmerman clearly had every right to kill someone he chased down and confronted because that person broke his nose?

since you're basing your opinion on actual facts instead of waiting for additional facts, i'd vote for stupid...

btw, i hear stupid is in good company...

[BryanBusby]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

It will all boil down to what the legal definition, and what the juror's definitions of 'forcing a confrontation' is.

Some people believe that just Zimmerman chasing after Trayvon asking him "Hey what are you doing here" is reason enough for Trayvon Martin to punch Zimmerman.

Some do not.

I'm going to guess that a jury pool might have the same mixed results.

I think everyone would agree that if Zimmerman put his hands on Martin, then Martin has the right to throw a punch.

It is the grey area of just being followed, or if perhaps Martin throws a punch and follows it up by getting on top of martin and wrestling with him where I think it gets harder to say.

For me personally, if the evidence showed that Zimmerman approached MArtin, and asked "hey what are you doing" and it was Martin who threw the 1st punch....then I don't really consider that an appropriate response by martin.

That's just me though.

Even if the teen threw the first punch, seems like he was using the Stand Your Ground law without being a retard about it. He had every right to feel threatened by a dude bigger and older chasing him down in a truck with a gun.

[go bowe]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

Go for it dawg, I know you enjoy being wrong and looking like a fool, you are probably naked and lubed up as you are typing.

have you been looking through the glory hole again?

[go bowe]

Originally Posted by BryanBusby

Even if the teen threw the first punch, seems like he was using the Stand Your Ground law without being a retard about it. He had every right to feel threatened by a dude bigger and older chasing him down in a truck with a gun.

you sir, are obviously too stupid to know that the stand your ground law only applies if you have a gun...

standing your ground with a punch to the nose is not justifiable...

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by BryanBusby

Even if the teen threw the first punch, seems like he was using the Stand Your Ground law without being a retard about it. He had every right to feel threatened by a dude bigger and older chasing him down in a truck with a gun.

Well it is possible that this is wrong but:

1) I don't believe the gun was brandished until after Zimmerman was punched in the nose, there is no evidence of this...and it just doesnt make any sense for it to be otherwise.

2) I think trayvon is bigger than Zimmerman, I heard Trayvon martin was over 6 feet tall. Again, this will all come out April 10th, and may be wrong..but I can't seem to find any super solid (other than people's comments) info on it, other than some of the pictures they are using to show what Trayvon looked like are from when he was 11-13.

3) You can 'feel threatened' but you can't punch people in the face and expect no consequences, if someone is just asking what you are doing.
I'm not saying he deserved to die, but if you have ever been in any kind of physical situation you know that they can get out of hand very quickly. If you decide to use force on someone, to escalate the level, you have to realize that things get wild.

Im not even going to address the stand your ground law, since I don't even know they will need to use that as a defense. We will find out After april 10th.

[BryanBusby]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

Well it is possible that this is wrong but:

1) I don't believe the gun was brandished until after Zimmerman was punched in the nose, there is no evidence of this...and it just doesnt make any sense for it to be otherwise.

2) I think trayvon is bigger than Zimmerman, I heard Trayvon martin was over 6 feet tall. Again, this will all come out April 10th, and may be wrong..but I can't seem to find any super solid (other than people's comments) info on it, other than some of the pictures they are using to show what Trayvon looked like are from when he was 11-13.

3) You can 'feel threatened' but you can't punch people in the face and expect no consequences, if someone is just asking what you are doing.
I'm not saying he deserved to die, but if you have ever been in any kind of physical situation you know that they can get out of hand very quickly. If you decide to use force on someone, to escalate the level, you have to realize that things get wild.

Im not even going to address the stand your ground law, since I don't even know they will need to use that as a defense. We will find out After april 10th.

1. You do know there's more than just flashing a gun to warrant someone else to feel the need to defend themselves.

2. So ****ing what if he's taller? Zimmerman had several years and a good 100 pounds on him. I've seen shorter dudes know taller ones out several times.

3. According to the poorly written Stand Your Ground law, why yes...yes he can.

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by BryanBusby

1. You do know there's more than just flashing a gun to warrant someone else to feel the need to defend themselves.

2. So ****ing what if he's taller? Zimmerman had several years and a good 100 pounds on him. I've seen shorter dudes know taller ones out several times.

3. According to the poorly written Stand Your Ground law, why yes...yes he can.

1) youre the one who brought it (brandishing a weapon) up, my answer was in response to yours.

2) So what? No one seems to mention it, it is a factor.....would you mind posting the info you have on their weights, I can't seem to find any sites with it. Thanks.

3) I'm going to go out on a limb and trust legitimate legal experts instead of you on this issue. Besides, it really isn't relevant just yet...since neither party has claimed their side was 'standing their ground' yet. It could be a simple 'self defense' case, it might involve stand your ground.....but I am willing to wait until it comes into play to determine which side has the right to claim stand your ground, if any.

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

1) youre the one who brought it (brandishing a weapon) up, my answer was in response to yours.

2) So what? No one seems to mention it, it is a factor.....would you mind posting the info you have on their weights, I can't seem to find any sites with it. Thanks.

3) I'm going to go out on a limb and trust legitimate legal experts instead of you on this issue. Besides, it really isn't relevant just yet...since neither party has claimed their side was 'standing their ground' yet. It could be a simple 'self defense' case, it might involve stand your ground.....but I am willing to wait until it comes into play to determine which side has the right to claim stand your ground, if any.

I think your understanding of stand you ground laws may be lacking. He almost certainly will have to rely on it as part of his defense.

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by jspchief

I think your understanding of stand you ground laws may be lacking. He almost certainly will have to rely on it as part of his defense.

Just shut the **** up, honestly.

[BryanBusby]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

1) youre the one who brought it (brandishing a weapon) up, my answer was in response to yours.

2) So what? No one seems to mention it, it is a factor.....would you mind posting the info you have on their weights, I can't seem to find any sites with it. Thanks.

3) I'm going to go out on a limb and trust legitimate legal experts instead of you on this issue. Besides, it really isn't relevant just yet...since neither party has claimed their side was 'standing their ground' yet. It could be a simple 'self defense' case, it might involve stand your ground.....but I am willing to wait until it comes into play to determine which side has the right to claim stand your ground, if any.

1. ITT: You have to pull out your gun for the victim to realize you have a gun.

2. This has been broken down and I'm not going to trudge through thousands of articles because you can't distinguish the obvious. Either way, it ****ing doesn't matter.

3. I'm sorry you lack the intelligence to come up with your own conclusion.