New evidence released from Trayvon Martin's cellphone

[chrisj1968]

Florida is a defend your castle ( as yourself too) state. Maryland here is too.

Here is the updated list of the states which have adopted some form of Castle Doctrine law, as of June 21 2008.

Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming

source: http://tekel.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/castle-doctrine-map-update-for-january-2009/

[shakey]

So is that what happened? Nobody seems to know how the altercation started. At this point, you are assuming that Zimmerman started yelling at him and giving him crap.

What if Zimmerman was just following him, and Trayvon turned and started the physical altercation? If that is the case, then Trayvon is in the wrong. He could have walked away without an issue.

We do not know what happened, we know he got out of the vehicle, and followed Trayvon. We know that Trayvon was killed. We know that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman pulled the trigger. That is what we know.

Everything else is conjecture at this time.

No it isn't.

Neighborhood watch rules : No guns, No confrontations. You call police and that is it.

Zimmerman was following a kid, while being armed, and confronted him. He decided to ignore the regulations given by the counties sherrif for neighborhood watch rules, as well as disregarding and ignoring dispatch who said not to do the exact thing he did.

Doesn't matter what you believe might have happened afterward. You look at how it all happened.

Would a person have died that night if Zimmerman had done what he was supposed to? No. That right there is enough at the end to get him guilty of manslaughter. Then we can go even further. Was Zimmerman in the wrong for carrying a gun? Yes. He has a past record that should have made it illegal for him to carry, as well as breaking the rule that NHW are not supposed to carry guns. Remember, all these rules are orders from the Sheriff of the county.

You can have doubts about whatever you want, but the evidence against him makes it easy to see how this all could have been totally avoided.

[rfirth]

Would a person have died that night if Zimmerman had done what he was supposed to? No.

Doesn't matter. Self-defense is a valid defense.

Sure, he'll be kicked out of neighborhood watch and might be charged with other crimes, but if he was attacked, he's not guilty of manslaughter. The problem is, we don't know who attacked who. But given Trayvon Martin's affinity for street fighting, you can't say beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't attack Zimmerman.

And you can't say that you should have a reasonable expectation that you will be physically attacked if you follow somebody. No, being physically attacked is assault. You can't just go around assaulting people because they asked you a question (assuming Zimmerman even got the chance to confront before being attacked).

I'm not taking sides... I'm just saying that their is enough evidence to swing this either way to either story, and both are plausible. Nobody can be certain beyond a reasonable doubt.

[xendrome]

rfirth is correct, all of the "rules" that were broken have pretty much nothing to do with anything except civilly and procedural. The fact is, if you are attacked and are being attacked to the point that you are in fear for your life, you have the right to defend yourself. It doesn't make it OK for someone to bash your skull in because you were "following them" but it does make it OK to shoot and kill someone if they are bashing your head into the pavement, regardless of how the fight started. Once one person puts another person into the danger of death, things change.

Now there are some people out there, believe it or not, even on this forum that will reply/argue back with "But fine sir, if I started it by following someone then the other person who I was following has the right to bash my head in and kill me, and I should not be allowed to fight back or defend myself".

I really don't get people.. and the above was a general statement, I wasn't at the scene of the crime like half of the other people on the internet and these forums were. So I can also see things going both ways honestly.

To those of you who were at the scene of the crime when it happened, since you seem to know all of the details of exactly how it went down, please contact Sanford PD at 407-688-5070 or CFCrimeLine at 1-888-423-TIPS. I'm sure the investigators/prosecution/defense would love to interview you and get a statement, P.S. you will probably be called as a witness.

[shakey]

Doesn't matter. Self-defense is a valid defense.

Sure, he'll be kicked out of neighborhood watch and might be charged with other crimes, but if he was attacked, he's not guilty of manslaughter. The problem is, we don't know who attacked who. But given Trayvon Martin's affinity for street fighting, you can't say beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't attack Zimmerman.

And you can't say that you should have a reasonable expectation that you will be physically attacked if you follow somebody. No, being physically attacked is assault. You can't just go around assaulting people because they asked you a question (assuming Zimmerman even got the chance to confront before being attacked).

I'm not taking sides... I'm just saying that their is enough evidence to swing this either way to either story, and both are plausible. Nobody can be certain beyond a reasonable doubt.

rfirth is correct, all of the "rules" that were broken have pretty much nothing to do with anything except civilly and procedural. The fact is, if you are attacked and are being attacked to the point that you are in fear for your life, you have the right to defend yourself. It doesn't make it OK for someone to bash your skull in because you were "following them" but it does make it OK to shoot and kill someone if they are bashing your head into the pavement, regardless of how the fight started. Once one person puts another person into the danger of death, things change.

Now there are some people out there, believe it or not, even on this forum that will reply/argue back with "But fine sir, if I started it by following someone then the other person who I was following has the right to bash my head in and kill me, and I should not be allowed to fight back or defend myself".

I really don't get people.. and the above was a general statement, I wasn't at the scene of the crime like half of the other people on the internet and these forums were. So I can also see things going both ways honestly.

To those of you who were at the scene of the crime when it happened, since you seem to know all of the details of exactly how it went down, please contact Sanford PD at 407-688-5070 or CFCrimeLine at 1-888-423-TIPS. I'm sure the investigators/prosecution/defense would love to interview you and get a statement, P.S. you will probably be called as a witness.

Self Defense goes both ways. Who was more affriad, the guy doing the stalking or the one being stalked? The guy who was armed and knew what he was up against, or the teenager who wasn't and was be followed and confronted?

Zimmerman already has a checkered past, that is on record. We don't have to jump to conclusions from photos or facebook post, because Zimmerman has actually been in conflict with the law and others through his actions.

I'm not saying I was there, but it isn't hard to think logically and see where and who is mostly at fault. If you can't, you are pretty blind to human nature and other such ways to our behavior and how we apply the law.

[xendrome]

Self Defense goes both ways. Who was more affriad, the guy doing the stalking or the one being stalked? The guy who was armed and knew what he was up against, or the teenager who wasn't and was be followed and confronted?

Zimmerman already has a checkered past, that is on record. We don't have to jump to conclusions from photos or facebook post, because Zimmerman has actually been in conflict with the law and others through his actions.

I'm not saying I was there, but it isn't hard to think logically and see where and who is mostly at fault. If you can't, you are pretty blind to human nature and other such ways to our behavior and how we apply the law.

Self Defense does not go both ways. It is clearly defined when deadly force can be used - http://www.leg.state.../0776/0776.html your definition of "who was more afraid" is so far off base it's not even funny.

[shakey]

Self Defense does not go both ways. It is clearly defined when deadly force can be used - http://www.leg.state.../0776/0776.html your definition of "who was more afraid" is so far off base it's not even funny.

Explain then. How am I off on it? Easy to just dismiss something without backing it up with an actual arguement.

Teenager being followed at night by someone. Teenager confronted by that person. How would you 'feel" during that? Would you be scared or try and hug them?

Man following teenager. Man is armed. Man confronts teenager. Does someone who is scared of someone normally confront them? Or does someone who feels they are more in control of the situation more likely to try and confront?

When I said self defense goes both ways, it was to mean that if we are to assume Zimmerman was right to defend himself, we are to assume that Trayvon was just as much in the right to defend himself. Self Defense, not deadly force, is OK when you feel that your life is in danger. Deadly Force is what self defense escalates to when you can't stop what is happening and are facing serouise grievous harm and the only way to stop it is by taking the other's life.

So yes, please, explain yourself.

[xendrome]

Explain then. How am I off on it? Easy to just dismiss something without backing up it up an actual arguement.

Read the state statute, I can't explain it any clearer then that. It is written clearly and defines when deadly force can be used and the aggressor definitions also.

[123456789A]

What kind of cellphone did he have?

[shakey]

Read the state statute, I can't explain it any clearer then that. It is written clearly and defines when deadly force can be used and the aggressor definitions also.

And I just explained what it says.

In the United States of America, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first. The concept sometimes exists in statutory law and sometimes through common law precedents. One key distinction is whether the concept only applies to defending a home or vehicle, or whether it applies to all lawfully occupied locations.

Trayvon tried to get away, but was followed and confronted. What part of him feeling endangered would not constitute him defending himself? I don't think you are looking at this both ways.... You are saying Zimmerman had the right to defend himself, but are basically saying that Trayvon didn't. Let's say Trayvon did start the fight.... Who's to say it it wasn't in self defense to the actions that Zimmerman did, making Trayvon feel endangered and without any way to retreat.... Hense, self defenes in this can go both ways. It's amazing what can happen when you put your mind to it. You can see almost all options, and see how the actions of 1 lead to maybe both of them being wrong. But in the end, the actions of 1 are what lead to the death of the other. That is what they will get Zimmerman with.

[xendrome]

You are saying Zimmerman had the right to defend himself, but are basically saying that Trayvon didn't.

Defend from bashing head in, does not = Defend from being "followed". You are still totally missing the point

Being followed and having your head smashed into the ground are 2 different levels of aggression, they do not both equal the same response of force as each other.

That's what I am saying.

[MDboyz]

Unless he is still value for political for jesse jackson, al sharpton, or obama; otherwise, right now he is just another thug who sadly got shot.

[Clirion]

Trayvon tried to get away, but was followed and confronted. What part of him feeling endangered would not constitute him defending himself? I don't think you are looking at this both ways.... You are saying Zimmerman had the right to defend himself, but are basically saying that Trayvon didn't. Let's say Trayvon did start the fight.... Who's to say it it wasn't in self defense to the actions that Zimmerman did, making Trayvon feel endangered and without any way to retreat.... Hense, self defenes in this can go both ways. It's amazing what can happen when you put your mind to it. You can see almost all options, and see how the actions of 1 lead to maybe both of them being wrong. But in the end, the actions of 1 are what lead to the death of the other. That is what they will get Zimmerman with.

Tried to get away from what, When he was shot, it looks like he was on top of Zimmerman, applying force to his head to bring it up and back down into the pavement. We can say that he was not trying to get away at that point. Also at no point was it stated that there was a confrontation and Trayvon tried to walk away.

If I am correct on that piece, again it becomes conjecture. I can see your point in all of these situations, however, we do not know of ANY of those were the situation. Until we get a better idea of what happened, everyone is guessing.

[redfish]

Don't need a permit to own a gun, only to publicly carry. Zimmerman illegally carried his gun. You guys are making this easy.

There are states where you need a gun license.

...

Now we know Trayvon not only liked Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea, but also Reeses.

[soniqstylz]

None of this matters.

Did he have a gun on him when Zimmerman was stalking him? No? Was he high? No? Then it should never enter into the equation, because Zimmerman didn't know any of it at the time.

[Noir Angel]

As far as I'm concerned if you start trouble you get whatever's coming to you. It's a shame it wasn't Zimmerman that was shot, one less dangerous gun nut on the streets would be better for everyone. If the case were reversed and it had been a black guy shooting a white guy the righties would be absolutely up in arms about. Freedom: As long as you're a white guy with a gun.

[MorganX]

I beg to differ. Most Americans are nice, upstanding people.

As for this, it's about what I expected. The media had him painted as a saint.

So which part makes him not the saintly kid the media painted him as (not that I agree with that, your argument is bogus IMO). Smoking weed? Which 90% of middle and upperclass white Americans do? Are none of them saintly or good and innocent? Or holding a gun which half of all of America hate Obama because they think he will disarm them from having assault weapons at home and teaching toddlers to use them.? This includes mortars and rocket launchers.

The Catholic Church still protects and transfers pedophiles, so I take it no Catholic who still supports that church can ever be a saint or good person?

C'mon growled.

As far as I'm concerned if you start trouble you get whatever's coming to you. It's a shame it wasn't Zimmerman that was shot, one less dangerous gun nut on the streets would be better for everyone. If the case were reversed and it had been a black guy shooting a white guy the righties would be absolutely up in arms about. Freedom: As long as you're a white guy with a gun.

The Black guy would already be convicted and in prison. Let's be real here. They should charge this guy with manslaughter and call it a day.

Unless he is still value for political for jesse jackson, al sharpton, or obama; otherwise, right now he is just another thug who sadly got shot.

Just curious as to what makes him a thug? Does he have a criminal record? I don't know, haven't followed it that closely. But you called him a thug so I figure you know.

White boys take pictures with guns, smoking weed, act and talk black and thuggish and it's considered style, so I'm just making sure you're not confusing thuggery with acting like a teenage white boy.

[Noir Angel]

To hell with manslaughter I hope they do him for murder.

[rfirth]

If the case were reversed and it had been a black guy shooting a white guy the righties would be absolutely up in arms about. Freedom: As long as you're a white guy with a gun.

If the case were reversed? When did George Zimmerman become white? He's half Peruvian. He's clearly hispanic. Is Obama now just another white president?

[MorganX]

If the case were reversed? When did George Zimmerman become white? He's half Peruvian. He's clearly hispanic. Is Obama now just another white president?

Hispanics are Caucasian if you didn't know. America was basically built on anti-African American racism and it lives today. It can be overcome, but it is disingenuous to pretend it does not exist throughout America and particularly in Law Enforcement in large Metropolitan areas which is where the majority of African Americans in this country live.

If you believe the outcome wouldn't be dramatically different if the roles were reversed you're living in a fantasy land. Seeing you're from Louisiana, and how ridiculous law enforcement is there, I know you know better. Countless blacks were murdered during Katrina down there and the perps will never be brought to justice.

Don't get me wrong, criminals are criminals and all need to be punished. But the BS and people living in pathological lie fantasy land over issues like this drives me nuts. You really think you can rewrite history online? People are really stupid, no wonder we're in the shape we're in.

[MorganX]

To hell with manslaughter I hope they do him for murder.

Well, he was wearing a hoodie which helps cloud his intent and will keep this thing drawn out. They don't want to punish it at all so they're attacking his character over hip hop photos of himself to say maybe he deserved to be shot in cold blood. (Maybe it would have been better if he had Instagram'd them like white people do.)

Manslaughter would give the guy some prison time and put an end to this mess. It's bringing all the middle-class racists and their bull**** circular reasoning out of the closet and I prefer them to stay in the closet and terrorize their women and children at home instead of all of us with their sociopathy and whatever other psychological problems generates these types of sociopathic sadists.

[rfirth]

Hispanics are Caucasian if you didn't know. America was basically built on anti-African American racism and it lives today. It can be overcome, but it is disingenuous to pretend it does not exist throughout America and particularly in Law Enforcement in large Metropolitan areas which is where the majority of African Americans in this country live.

Very true, but you're ignoring the anti-Hispanic component. Hispanics aren't getting a free pass either. I never said it wouldn't be different if reversed.

If you believe the outcome wouldn't be dramatically different if the roles were reversed you're living in a fantasy land. Seeing you're from Louisiana, and how ridiculous law enforcement is there, I know you know better. Countless blacks were murdered during Katrina down there and the perps will never be brought to justice.

All too true. I'm just glad you didn't try to use the "Jena 6" as an example, although I don't think your Katrina example is any better - it was an overwhelming event and a huge failure on all levels.

Well, he was wearing a hoodie which helps cloud his intent and will keep this thing drawn out. They don't want to punish it at all so they're attacking his character over hip hop photos of himself to say maybe he deserved to be shot in cold blood.

They don't want to punish it at all so they're attacking his character? No, that's not what's going on. The state is prosecuting George Zimmerman. It's George Zimmerman's defense team that would like to attack Trayvon Martin's character.

It's not to say he deserved to be shot, but to build a case that perhaps Trayvon Martin did attack Zimmerman. The important piece of evidence isn't the guns or the drugs, but his interest in street fighting. Relevant? Absolutely. But everyone is wrongly focusing on the guns and drugs.

[MorganX]

Very true, but you're ignoring the anti-Hispanic component. Hispanics aren't getting a free pass either. I never said it wouldn't be different if reversed.

They don't want to punish it at all so they're attacking his character? No, that's not what's going on. The state is prosecuting George Zimmerman. It's George Zimmerman's defense team that would like to attack Trayvon Martin's character.

It's not to say he deserved to be shot, but to build a case that perhaps Trayvon Martin did attack Zimmerman. The important piece of evidence isn't the guns or the drugs, but his interest in street fighting. Relevant? Absolutely. But everyone is wrongly focusing on the guns and drugs.

Approving nod. I think I'll avoid this thread. Too incendiary. Many teens fight a lot. This should be open and shut. Gun vs. No Gun, Zimmerman's intent rather clear. I'd be happy with a few years in prison and a plea bargain for this to just go way, though the family probably wouldn't. Prison justice will balance things out.

[jnelsoninjax]

By why does it matters how the media painted him? It's not revelant to the case at all imo.

Personally i don't consider holding a gun or smoking as a really bad habit unless it becomes an obsession/addiction.

Sadly it does make a difference. So many people have this notion that zimmerman simply killed this kid and since the media is helping paint the kid as a saint, and innocent/helpless victim. Was the kid targeted because he smoked weed and played with guns? No. But you can bet when/if this goes to trial the defense is going to use this 'new' evidence to say that he somehow brought this on himself, and the jury, who is pulled from the area that he was killed at has seen this report, and it may cause them (the jury) to rethink the whole case, just because we are all be told how good Trayavon was.

[bradsday]

This situation was the culmination of a series of poor decisions. Mr Zimmerman should have not been armed and he should have heeded the advice of the emergency operator and not approached Trayvon. Conversely, Trayvon should not have escalated the situation from simple self-defense to assault with intent. Trayvon landed an initial punch to Mr Zimmerman breaking his nose; this would have essentially rendered him defenseless. Trayvon could have easily beat his retreat at this point. Instead, he made the conscience decision to assault Mr Zimmerman sitting atop him and bashing his head into the concrete pavement. Had Mr Zimmerman not shot Trayvon when he did, he would likely be dead now. The evidence of the assault on Mr Zimmerman is well documented; the absence of any such injuries on Trayvon speaks to the validity to Mr Zimmerman's account of the events that night.