Weed, fights and guns: Trayvon Martin’s text messages released

[JayC]

I'm just curious, you seem to have a very specific thought on manslaughter, and that doesn't seem to match TN or FL law involving manslaughter...  I'm curious how you came to that thought process.

 

Seeing as it's clear that Zimmerman didn't violate FL's stalking statute (since stalking in both TN and FL requires more than a single incident), clearly he isn't guilty of stalking under FL law.  Every part of FL law (748.048) requires "repeated" actions...  since nobody claims that GZ had ever seen TM before that night, clearly he wasn't stalking.

 

There isn't any terrorizing a citizen statues under FL law, maybe you mean terroristic or criminal threats?  The problem is that it doesn't appear even under the most critical reading of the FL statue on criminal threats does this case fit...  Since the threat must be written, verbal, or communications in a electronic form...  I think everybody agrees that didn't happen....  and the threat must be specific in nature and could not be mistaken for anything else.  Again, I just don't see how GZ could be guilty of that crime...

 

Then you run up against a couple of justification laws...  782.03 - Excusable Homicide - Says that homicides are excused when committed by accident and/or misfortune in doing ANY lawful act by lawful means.... 

 

 

And before you say that he was somehow negligent by getting out of the truck...  Lets look at a Neighborhood Watch handout from a major city...

 

 

Being on foot makes it much easier to notice detailed information about the environment or an event than one could notice driving in a car. For this reason, and others, the City does not encourage or support driving patrols.

 

 

From a safe distance, note exactly where the problem is happening and as many other details as you can safely gather. If cars are involved, try to get license plates. If the suspects leave, note the direction in which they travel.

 

While this isn't from the Sanford NW manual, it is from a watch manual in a major city...  that recommends only doing foot patrols, and to continue to watch from a safe distance noting all the details you can...  If that is within the 'standard response' range of neighborhood watch programs...  how is leaving one's car to keep an eye on somebody recklessly negligent?

 

I just don't see how you get to manslaughter under FL. 

 

Stalking and terrorizing a citizen who had as much right as Zimmerman to be walking around that neighborhood. To put you on notice, I won't be interrogated either. I will continue reading and respond to the post of my choosing. If your questions or my answers had some real bearing on the trial I would be happy to oblige.

 

[RobertNashville]

...While this isn't from the Sanford NW manual, it is from a watch manual in a major city...  that recommends only doing foot patrols, and to continue to watch from a safe distance noting all the details you can...  If that is within the 'standard response' range of neighborhood watch programs...  how is leaving one's car to keep an eye on somebody recklessly negligent?

 

I just don't see how you get to manslaughter under FL. 

Excellent post above.

 

I just thought I'd add that Zimmerman was just on his way to the store to run errands that night...he wasn't out there on "watch" as some, especially initially, tried to paint it...he just happened to be driving by and saw what he thought was a person acting suspiciously...based on what we know about Martin's past and the break-in history of that neighborhood I suspect his suspicion was more than justified.

 

I guess Zimmerman should have just done what most people do today, ignore what's going on around him and not get involved.

[DaveS]

I'm just curious, you seem to have a very specific thought on manslaughter, and that doesn't seem to match TN or FL law involving manslaughter...  I'm curious how you came to that thought process.

 

Seeing as it's clear that Zimmerman didn't violate FL's stalking statute (since stalking in both TN and FL requires more than a single incident), clearly he isn't guilty of stalking under FL law.  Every part of FL law (748.048) requires "repeated" actions...  since nobody claims that GZ had ever seen TM before that night, clearly he wasn't stalking.

 

There isn't any terrorizing a citizen statues under FL law, maybe you mean terroristic or criminal threats?  The problem is that it doesn't appear even under the most critical reading of the FL statue on criminal threats does this case fit...  Since the threat must be written, verbal, or communications in a electronic form...  I think everybody agrees that didn't happen....  and the threat must be specific in nature and could not be mistaken for anything else.  Again, I just don't see how GZ could be guilty of that crime...

 

Then you run up against a couple of justification laws...  782.03 - Excusable Homicide - Says that homicides are excused when committed by accident and/or misfortune in doing ANY lawful act by lawful means.... 

 

 

And before you say that he was somehow negligent by getting out of the truck...  Lets look at a Neighborhood Watch handout from a major city...

 

 

 

While this isn't from the Sanford NW manual, it is from a watch manual in a major city...  that recommends only doing foot patrols, and to continue to watch from a safe distance noting all the details you can...  If that is within the 'standard response' range of neighborhood watch programs...  how is leaving one's car to keep an eye on somebody recklessly negligent?

 

I just don't see how you get to manslaughter under FL. 

The witnesses that have testified already, says the NW persons are instructed to observe and report, NOT to follow. A major city means nothing. We're talking about Sanford Florida. What does the Sanford PD say?

 

Dave

[jgradyc]

He followed a 17 year old, and allowed that 17 year old armed with only a sidewalk, to jump out of the bushes and beat his ass with the sidewalk. He "neglected" to exercise his "situational awareness". J/K by the way....... 

 

Dave

I agree with most of this. One of the big lessons learned for all of us is don't drop your situational awareness in the moments AFTER an incident occurs.

 

In other news, one overlooked tidbit in the testimony this morning is devastating to the TM team.

 

Jeantel said TM was calling her from behind the father's girlfriend's house. That house was at the south end of the neighborhood. Yet the altercation as seen by witnesses and confirmed by the location of the body was 120 yards north, only a few yards away from where GZ had parked his truck. If Jeantel's testimony was truthful, for some reason TM went from the safety of the house 120 yards back towards Zimmerman.

 

Either the state's #1 witness is lying or Martin went back towards Zimmerman's truck.

Edited June 27, 2013 by jgradyc

[Guest nra37922]

I agree with most of this. One of the big lessons learned for all of us is don't drop your situational awareness in the moments AFTER an incident occurs.

 

In other news, one overlooked tidbit in the testimony this morning is devastating to the TM team.

 

Jeantel said TM was calling her from behind the father's girlfriend's house. That house was at the south end of the neighborhood. Yet the altercation as seen by witnesses and confirmed by the location of the body was 120 yards north, only a few yards away from where GZ had parked his truck. If Jeantel's testimony was truthful, for some reason TM went from the safety of the house 120 yards back towards Zimmerman.

 

Either the state's #1 witness is lying or Martin went back towards Zimmerman's truck.

If true then TM may have let the old chip on the shoulder BS drive his being diss'd ego into a situation where he was shot.  And if this wasn't truthful why should the rest of her testimony be?

[Links2k]

I'm just curious, you seem to have a very specific thought on manslaughter, and that doesn't seem to match TN or FL law involving manslaughter...  I'm curious how you came to that thought process.
 
Seeing as it's clear that Zimmerman didn't violate FL's stalking statute (since stalking in both TN and FL requires more than a single incident), clearly he isn't guilty of stalking under FL law.  Every part of FL law (748.048) requires "repeated" actions...  since nobody claims that GZ had ever seen TM before that night, clearly he wasn't stalking.
 
There isn't any terrorizing a citizen statues under FL law, maybe you mean terroristic or criminal threats?  The problem is that it doesn't appear even under the most critical reading of the FL statue on criminal threats does this case fit...  Since the threat must be written, verbal, or communications in a electronic form...  I think everybody agrees that didn't happen....  and the threat must be specific in nature and could not be mistaken for anything else.  Again, I just don't see how GZ could be guilty of that crime...
 
Then you run up against a couple of justification laws...  782.03 - Excusable Homicide - Says that homicides are excused when committed by accident and/or misfortune in doing ANY lawful act by lawful means.... 
 
 
And before you say that he was somehow negligent by getting out of the truck...  Lets look at a Neighborhood Watch handout from a major city...
 

 

 
While this isn't from the Sanford NW manual, it is from a watch manual in a major city...  that recommends only doing foot patrols, and to continue to watch from a safe distance noting all the details you can...  If that is within the 'standard response' range of neighborhood watch programs...  how is leaving one's car to keep an eye on somebody recklessly negligent?
 
I just don't see how you get to manslaughter under FL.

Just may opinions. I haven't delved into TN or FL law concerning thus case because it's not very important whether I'm right or wrong. Just a guy on a gun forum discussing current events.

[RichardR]

If true then TM may have let the old chip on the shoulder BS drive his being diss'd ego into a situation where he was shot. And if this wasn't truthful why should the rest of her testimony be?

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that during their phone conversation, she had "egged Trayvon on" until he decided to go teach dat cracka-ass-cracka who he be dealing wit.

[Links2k]

Excellent post above.
 
I just thought I'd add that Zimmerman was just on his way to the store to run errands that night...he wasn't out there on "watch" as some, especially initially, tried to paint it...he just happened to be driving by and saw what he thought was a person acting suspiciously...based on what we know about Martin's past and the break-in history of that neighborhood I suspect his suspicion was more than justified.
 
I guess Zimmerman should have just done what most people do today, ignore what's going on around him and not get involved.

Zimmermann knew nothing of Martins past. If Zimmermann was going to the store as he has said, he really had no business approaching and questioning Martin.

[Links2k]

I'm just curious, you seem to have a very specific thought on manslaughter, and that doesn't seem to match TN or FL law involving manslaughter...  I'm curious how you came to that thought process.
 
Seeing as it's clear that Zimmerman didn't violate FL's stalking statute (since stalking in both TN and FL requires more than a single incident), clearly he isn't guilty of stalking under FL law.  Every part of FL law (748.048) requires "repeated" actions...  since nobody claims that GZ had ever seen TM before that night, clearly he wasn't stalking.
 
There isn't any terrorizing a citizen statues under FL law, maybe you mean terroristic or criminal threats?  The problem is that it doesn't appear even under the most critical reading of the FL statue on criminal threats does this case fit...  Since the threat must be written, verbal, or communications in a electronic form...  I think everybody agrees that didn't happen....  and the threat must be specific in nature and could not be mistaken for anything else.  Again, I just don't see how GZ could be guilty of that crime...
 
Then you run up against a couple of justification laws...  782.03 - Excusable Homicide - Says that homicides are excused when committed by accident and/or misfortune in doing ANY lawful act by lawful means.... 
 
 
And before you say that he was somehow negligent by getting out of the truck...  Lets look at a Neighborhood Watch handout from a major city...
 

 

 
While this isn't from the Sanford NW manual, it is from a watch manual in a major city...  that recommends only doing foot patrols, and to continue to watch from a safe distance noting all the details you can...  If that is within the 'standard response' range of neighborhood watch programs...  how is leaving one's car to keep an eye on somebody recklessly negligent?
 
I just don't see how you get to manslaughter under FL.

Seriously, thanks for the info. Something to consider.

[RobertNashville]

Zimmermann knew nothing of Martins past. If Zimmermann was going to the store as he has said, he really had no business approaching and questioning Martin.

That's true, he didn't but I wasn't trying to imply that Zimmerman knew anything of Martin's past.

 

My point was that since we know something of Martin's past (and the jury may if it ends up being introduced) means that it is not unreasonable for us to speculate that Martin may well have been up to doing more than just "going to the store" for some skittles...that Martin was acting suspiciously because he really was up to no good and that Zimmerman's suspicion of him was justified.

 

We can argue the point of whether Zimmerman "had no business approaching and questioning Martin", if indeed that happened, but even if Zimmerman did that it does not give justification to Martin to start a vicious attack on Zimmerman.

Edited June 28, 2013 by RobertNashville

[DaveS]

Aggravated Manslaughter popped into my mind since the victum was under 18. I'll have to research the particulars of that offense. Again, that was the first thing that popped in my mind.

 

Dave

[mikegideon]

Best looking witness.

 

Large spongy bagungas?

[Garufa]

Aggravated Manslaughter popped into my mind since the victum was under 18. I'll have to research the particulars of that offense. Again, that was the first thing that popped in my mind.

 

Dave

 

 

You sure seem hell-bent on convicting a man for defending his life.

[DaveS]

You sure seem hell-bent on convicting a man for defending his life.

Just participating in a public discussion on a gun forum. My opinion is just that....my opinion. If he did wrong then convict him. If he didn't, let him go. Means nothing to me. I don't have his problems....  ;)  :cry:

 

Dave

[mikegideon]

[Guest nra37922]

Jury either has to come back with 2nd Degree murder or acquit.  There is no option for a lesser verdict, wouldn't make much difference as GZ is in the right and should be found not guilty of anything.

[MattCary]

 

Too damn funny!  

[mikegideon]

Too damn funny!  

 

I stole it from you off Facebook.

[DaveS]

Jury either has to come back with 2nd Degree murder or acquit.  There is no option for a lesser verdict, wouldn't make much difference as GZ is in the right and should be found not guilty of anything.

? 

 

Dave

[Chucktshoes]

I'm totally gonna buy one.

[DaveTN]

Jury either has to come back with 2nd Degree murder or acquit.  There is no option for a lesser verdict,

That's not true.

[Oh Shoot]

Jury either has to come back with 2nd Degree murder or acquit.  There is no option for a lesser verdict, wouldn't make much difference as GZ is in the right and should be found not guilty of anything.

 

Everything I'm seeing indicates jury could convict him of a lesser charge.

 

- OS

[RobertNashville]

Everything I'm seeing indicates jury could convict him of a lesser charge.

 

- OS

The jury can convict of a lessor charge under FL law but let's think this through a bit...

 

If Martin initiated the physical attack and if Zimmerman was in legitimate fear for his life then Zimmerman has a legitimate claim of self defense. The only thing I can see under FL law that would impact that fairly simple equation is whether Zimmerman's actions leading up to the physical altercation crossed the line; i.e., were sufficient to incite Martin to attack him.

 

So, the prosecution must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that either Zimmerman was not in legitimate fear for his life or that Zimmerman's actions were so significant that they incited Martin to act out in fear for his own life...for murder 2 they have the additional burden of proving that Zimmerman did all that plus did it with a depraved mind.

 

If Zimmerman did not cross the line into illegal action that incited Martin to attack him and if Martin initiated the attack and Zimmerman was in legitimate fear for his life then I see no way he can be found guilty of either murder 2 or manslaughter.

 

The state has a high burden. Plus, their witnesses so far have not very convincing (to say the lest).

[Joseg]

Best looking witness.

 

 

Which one?  the Colombian chic? her, oh man you really need to go to Florida, she's just not even near the tip of the iceberg.. 

Edited June 28, 2013 by Joseg

[Guest nra37922]

That's not true.

Your right I was misinformed.  2nd degree murder and manslaughter are the charges