Trayvon / Media

[spence]

You guys are over thinking this. His job was to wait for the police, not engage the person he suspected of being a criminal. In that moment he went from a being a community watcher to vigilante. So far I've not seen any evidence that contradicts this.

I'll be astonished if he doesn't get a manslaughter conviction.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You guys are over thinking this. His job was to wait for the police, not engage the person he suspected of being a criminal. In that moment he went from a being a community watcher to vigilante. So far I've not seen any evidence that contradicts this.

I'll be astonished if he doesn't get a manslaughter conviction.

-spence

"His job was to wait for the police, not engage the person he suspected of being a criminal."

There's no law that says you can't actively engage someone you think is committing a crime. There is such a thing as a citizen's arrest.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"His job was to wait for the police, not engage the person he suspected of being a criminal."

There's no law that says you can't actively engage someone you think is committing a crime. There is such a thing as a citizen's arrest.

exactly.

if there are break ins in your neighborhood and you see someone sneaking around none of you would follow? You'd just call the police?
How about if some funny looking guy was walking around a school yard, eyeing little girls? You'd call the police and go home? Im a wimp but I would keep my eye on them until the police arrive.
Based on 911 call, thats exactly what zim was doing. no crime there at all. you can spin it as stalking but the defense will spin it as civic duty.

[RIJIMMY]

here you go Likwid from a former prosecutor and law professor - I am sure its horse dookie to you but what will it mean to the jury?

To paraphrase President Obama, if I had a son who had been flat on the ground in a vicious fight, the back of his head would look like that of accused murderer George Zimmerman.

Thanks to a photograph broadcast by ABC News showing Zimmerman’s bloody head wounds, those trying to use Trayvon Martin’s death to challenge “stand your ground” self-defense laws had better start exploiting some other tragedy. For the picture demonstrates that Zimmerman was unable to retreat, since he was pinned to the ground taking a beating when he shot Martin. And note that one of the depicted wounds is long and straight, consistent with Zimmerman’s claim that Martin was pounding his head against an edged curbstone at the time of the fatal shot.

We don’t have all the facts, but there are things we do know.

For instance, the police radio tape proves that Zimmerman was describing his actions to the police as he allegedly stalked his victim. Doesn’t that undercut the murder charges? What kind of criminal calls 911 to tell the police he is hunting down his intended prey?

On the tape, Zimmerman not only advises he is following Martin, but he also asks for confirmation that a police officer is being dispatched to investigate. The dispatcher replies that Zimmerman doesn’t need to follow Martin, to which Zimmerman promptly responds “OK” and agrees, instead, to rendezvous with the en-route police officer.

Again, what kind of murderer, preparing for the kill, invites the police to interrupt his scheme? Moreover, doesn’t this conversation support Zimmerman’s claim that he had ceased his pursuit prior to the confrontation with Martin?

We also know that, after shooting Martin, Zimmerman waited for the police to arrive and cooperated fully with their investigation, even as emergency medical personnel treated his head wounds. Wouldn’t someone who had just committed a heinous hate crime potentially punishable by death or life imprisonment have fled the scene or, at least, requested legal counsel and refused to answer questions?

Zimmerman and Martin fought on the ground, and the fight ended when Zimmerman pulled the trigger. But at Zimmerman’s bail hearing, a prosecution detective, who had sworn out the arrest warrant, testified that he couldn’t say who had started the fight.

If this case goes to trial, the prosecution will need a better answer than that if it hopes to prove Zimmerman was the aggressor. And shouldn’t that key issue have been resolved before bringing murder charges against an obviously injured person claiming that he acted in self-defense?

While much evidence remains to be disclosed, what we have learned so far raises serious questions about the strength, rationale, and integrity of the prosecution’s case. These questions are all the more troubling given the tsunami of manufactured racist hysteria that clearly influenced the decision to arrest “white Hispanic” George Zimmerman.

Stay tuned.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

There is such a thing as a citizen's arrest.

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

exactly.

Not Really....a citizen's Arrest can only be made IF you actually Witness a crime being Committed....not think he might be going to commit a crime.

Each state, with the exception of North Carolina, permits citizen arrests if the commission of a felony is witnessed by the arresting citizen, or when a citizen is asked to assist in the apprehension of a suspect by police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanors, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party. For example, Arizona law allows a citizen's arrest if the arrestor has personally witnessed the offense occurring.[37]

I don't think a citizen's arrest can be used in this case... I think it will all boil down to who is deemed the Antagonist

[likwid]

Really? An OpEd is your evidence?

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by likwid

Really? An OpEd is your evidence?

not evidence, opinion. from people more educated and inexpericeced than you and Spence.
Opinion is all that is needed for reasonable doubt.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

not evidence, opinion. from people more educated and inexpericeced than you and Spence.
Opinion is all that is needed for reasonable doubt.

Ahhh yes, once again, the media doing the thinking for you.


This won't be a 'stand your ground' case due to the wording:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using
the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent
that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend
himself or herself or another against the such other’s imminent use of unlawful
force. However, a the person is justified in the use of deadly force and
does not have a duty to retreat only if:

(a) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent
imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to
prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;

Getting the crap kicked out of you by a kid is not justifiable use of force.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Not Really....a citizen's Arrest can only be made IF you actually Witness a crime being Committed....not think he might be going to commit a crime.

Each state, with the exception of North Carolina, permits citizen arrests if the commission of a felony is witnessed by the arresting citizen, or when a citizen is asked to assist in the apprehension of a suspect by police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanors, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party. For example, Arizona law allows a citizen's arrest if the arrestor has personally witnessed the offense occurring.[37]

I don't think a citizen's arrest can be used in this case... I think it will all boil down to who is deemed the Antagonist

I wasn't saying a citizen's arrest was warranted in this case. I was saying that Zimmerman's act of following this kid (or stalking him, whatever you want to call it) was not, itself, a crime. Spence said Zimmerman's "job" was to wait for police, and that's absolutely, 100% false. If a citizen sees something suspicious, he is not required to sit and wait. There is no law saying he cannot actively engage. There are limits, or course.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I wasn't saying a citizen's arrest was warranted in this case. I was saying that Zimmerman's act of following this kid (or stalking him, whatever you want to call it) was not, itself, a crime. Spence said Zimmerman's "job" was to wait for police, and that's absolutely, 100% false. If a citizen sees something suspicious, he is not required to sit and wait. There is no law saying he cannot actively engage. There are limits, or course.

The police gave Zimmerman -- as a community watch officer -- strict instructions as to what he could or could not do. He was not supposed to carry a weapon, he was not supposed to engage a suspect. He violated both of these instructions.

As TDF said, witnessing a "crime" may be different. But acting on suspicion alone, especially when you've been instructed not to is clearly a conflict the jury will be forced to consider.

-spence