Trayvon Martin’s social media posts may come up at trial [W: 980]

[Excon]

Nope, you never did

Yes he did provide a quote.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...come-up-trial-w-980-a-164.html#post1060478418

He just didn't source it like I did.
So are you blind, a liar or just mistaken?

Thanks. I was aware that there was a witness who had heard some of the event, but I didn't know that they had also watched some of it.

I guess I was a bit careless of my wording. I was wrong to say that no one was watching at the time of the shooting. I should have pointed out that no one witnessed how the argument began and who approached whom.

I guess you are not aware of this guy who was actually on the scene, not just in the vicinity as the others were, and wasn't hindered by the darkness as the above witness was.

"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.

John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.

"And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."
Trayvon Martin shot and killed in neighborhood altercation​

FO. I posted what she said and even posted a link to her interview so posters here could hear her account first hand. She was watching the fight when the gun was fired and said they were completely on the grass and 4 feet away from the walkway. Deal with it.

You are peddling bs.
She did not see the gun shot.
She heard it.
Heck, she couldn't even see good enough.
And you know it.
You are doing nothing but grasping.

Denying it helps you not. Not only is it going to be a component of the prosecution's case, they've already brought it up in the bond hearing. You can be certain they will highlight that in the trial, if there is one.

Wrong!

I think I'll take the judge's word for it when he cited one of the reasons being the defendant placed himself in a dangerous situation with a weapon.

I provided you the Judges words as to why. Go back and read it, absorb it, and understand it.

Never-mind, I have no problem fetching it for you to show everybody how foolish and blind you are being.

"The court finds that the state's exhibit in evidence is not a common pocket knife. He was not authorized by law to possess that at the time that he possessed it, so as such [highlight]he was engaged in unlawful activity and is barred from claiming self defense of immunity[/highlight]," Judge Alan Apte said.

[...]

The attorney for Craig Sandhaus can still use the claim of self-defense in the upcoming trial.

"The judge called it like he saw it," said attorney Eric Schwartzreich. "We disagree with him, we think he's wrong. We're entitled to use this as a defense in front of a jury. I do believe we will prevail in front of the jury and found not guilty. He was defending his brother. That's the truth that's all he was doing."
Judge Denies Self-Defense Claim In Bouncer Death - Orlando News Story - WESH Orlando​

Of course NW protocols matter.. While they may not be legally binding.. they go to reasonable rather than reckless conduct.

If GZ had followed NW protocols.. Trayvon would be alive, GZ wouldn't be on trial for murder and the HOA wouldn't be facing a million dollars in civil liability.

No, they don't matter.
Nor does it suggest any recklessness on Zimmerman's part.

If this gets to a jury, they are going to find his actions of following Trayvon reasonable.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

The point isn't that he had to abide by them. If you're arguing that, then you're missing the point.
It's that the guidelines exist, Z had cause to know them, and chose to do something else. Just like w/ the dispatcher, it's not that the dispatcher's words have the weight of law. Z wasn't obligated to abide by the dispatcher's comments and suggestions. It's that Z was told his effort was unnecessary and chose to proceed anyway.
iirc, there's more than one of the offenses which speak to a state of mind.

It has no bearing.
It doesn't matter if he had cause to know them.
They are not going to come into play.

You have no idea what you're talking about ... they're already "in play" ...

DE LA RIONDA: Okay and were you aware that he was involved in a neighborhood watch program, sir?

R. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, I was.

DE LA RIONDA: Okay and did you know that those neighborhood watches in terms of procedures they tell people not to follow people?

R. ZIMMERMAN: Well, when they are performing neighborhood watch, that's correct.
​

 

[Kreton]

hundreds and hundreds of posts have shown me a few things.

1. People think that if they do not like the actions of a person that that person is guilty of a crime
2. There are more than a couple posters on DP who have no clue how the law works
3. People here cannot differentiate between speculation and fact.

According to the law, if GZ statements cannot be proven false (which none of you have been able to do) he will be found not guilty. O'Mara doesn't have to prove anything to anything. The prosecution has to convince every juror beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman could not have acted in self defense. Ziimmerman/O'Mara only have to make one juror think it is possible GZ did act in self defense. Just one needs to have doubt.

 

[buck]

John Doe says he saw Martin attack Zimmerman.

John Doe, is a faceless, anonymous witness.

Call me unimpressed.

"john" (allegedly) gave the same info to the police, in an interview. . So, be unimporessed all you want.

 

[buck]

Yes he did provide a quote.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...come-up-trial-w-980-a-164.html#post1060478418

He just didn't source it like I did.

Thank you.

 

[Kreton]

You have no idea what you're talking about ... they're already "in play" ...

DE LA RIONDA: Okay and were you aware that he was involved in a neighborhood watch program, sir?

R. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, I was.

DE LA RIONDA: Okay and did you know that those neighborhood watches in terms of procedures they tell people not to follow people?

R. ZIMMERMAN: Well, when they are performing neighborhood watch, that's correct.
​

KEY STATEMENT

R. ZIMMERMAN: Well, when they are performing neighborhood watch, that's correct.

 

[Kreton]

"john" (allegedly) gave the same info to the police, in an interview. . So, be unimporessed all you want.

Any witnesses or evidence that is going to be used in the trial is irrelevant. thunder knows he is right and he will be damned if facts change his mind.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

You are peddling bs.
She did not see the gun shot.
She heard it.
Heck, she couldn't even see good enough.
And you know it.
You are doing nothing but grasping.

Maybe you're just reading impaired. I didn't quote her saying she "saw the gunshot," I quoted her saying she was watching the fight when the gun was fired. And she saw well enough to describe their fight occurred on the grass, 4 feet away from the walkway. What she said she couldn't see, because it was dark out, was their faces. You are getting increasingly desperate.

Denying it helps you not. Not only is it going to be a component of the prosecution's case, they've already brought it up in the bond hearing. You can be certain they will highlight that in the trial, if there is one.

Wrong!

No, not wrong. It's already in the court record as the prosecution raised the issue during the bond hearing. I'll chalk up your baseless denials to your ever increasing desperation.

I provided you the Judges words as to why. Go back and read it and absorb it and understand it.

I too provided the judges words. He cited several reasons why self defense was denied. Knowingly entering a dangerous situation with a weapon was one of them. Your desperation does not negate what the honorable judge said.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Florida law says Martin didn't have to run away. He could Stand His Ground.

That's not what Florida's law says. When outside of a home, as was the case with Trayvon, unless someone attacks you, there is no "ground to stand."

 

[Kreton]

That's not what Florida's law says. When outside of a home, as was the case with Trayvon, unless someone attacks you, there is no "ground to stand."

We agree on that Sheik. Feels weird.

 

[OscarB63]

That's not what Florida's law says. When outside of a home, as was the case with Trayvon, unless someone attacks you, there is no "ground to stand."

So under SYG, it all comes down to who attacked who. The attacker is not covered under SYG. The attackee is. Unless by committing some illegal action the attackee provoked the attack

Is SYG an affirmative defense? Or does the state have to prove zimmerman either provoked the attack or started the fight?

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

KEY STATEMENT

R. ZIMMERMAN: Well, when they are performing neighborhood watch, that's correct.

And Zimmerman was performing his neighborhood watch responsibilities when he called for police to come check out someone he suspected was up to no good.

 

[j-mac]

And Zimmerman was performing his neighborhood watch responsibilities when he called for police to come check out someone he suspected was up to no good.

Does that mean that anytime that Z left his home he was on watch?


j-mac

 

[Kreton]

And Zimmerman was performing his neighborhood watch responsibilities when he called for police to come check out someone he suspected was up to no good.

he was on his way to Target or somewhere. He was not out on a NHW patrol. At that point he was resident who took action. He just happened to be a NHW captain. So if we are splitting hairs that has to be considered. He did not carry a gun while on NHW patrol. He carried a gun as a citizen.

 

[Kreton]

So under SYG, it all comes down to who attacked who. The attacker is not covered under SYG. The attackee is. Unless by committing some illegal action the attackee provoked the attack

Is SYG an affirmative defense? Or does the state have to prove zimmerman either provoked the attack or started the fight?

The state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt either way. The only burden the defense carries is to support their claim. The prosecutions burden does not change.

 

[OscarB63]

And Zimmerman was performing his neighborhood watch responsibilities when he called for police to come check out someone he suspected was up to no good.

We can argue that technicality forever. Yes he was a member of NW. But on the night in question he was just a guy on the way to the store. Was he or was he not acting in capacity of NW? :shrug:

 

[buck]

We can argue that technicality forever. Yes he was a member of NW. But on the night in question he was just a guy on the way to the store. Was he or was he not acting in capacity of NW? :shrug:

If the court finds that he was acting in capacity of NW, it would see that the court has then, essentially, stripped him of his CCW. Anytime he leaves the house, it could be claimed he was performing his duties as NW and he should not have a gun.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Does that mean that anytime that Z left his home he was on watch?


j-mac

Participating in a Neighborhood Watch program is not a job. There is no time clock. There is no "on-duty" status. All it means is that you are trained what to be on alert and what to do (and what not to do) when observing something suspicious and to call it in. You are to be the "eyes and ears" of the police. As Neighborhood Watch captain and depending on the program, you also have the added responsibilities of distributing flyers within the neighborhood, organizing neighborhood watch meetings, and being the liaison with the police department's Neighborhood Watch program instructors.

When Zimmerman observed something suspicious and called it in, he was doing so as a Neighborhood Watch participant.

 

[OscarB63]

If the court finds that he was acting in capacity of NW, it would see that the court has then, essentially, stripped him of his CCW. Anytime he leaves the house, it could be claimed he was performing his duties as NW and he should not have a gun.

That is my thought as well. I am in the army reserves. Regulations prohibit me from doing certain things while on duty. Simple example, I have to shave every morning and must wear a hat while outside. That doesn't mean I have to put on a hat every time I go outside....only when I am "on duty"

If zimm wasn't on NW patrol, then the policies shouldn't apply. As a concerned citizen he could have followed martin.

Not saying that it wasn't stupid of him to do so, but it wasn't illegal and he didn't violate any HOA policies

 

[j-mac]

Participating in a Neighborhood Watch program is not a job. There is no time clock. There is no "on-duty" status. All it means is that you are trained what to be on alert and what to do (and what not to do) when observing something suspicious and to call it in. You are to be the "eyes and ears" of the police. As Neighborhood Watch captain and depending on the program, you also have the added responsibilities of distributing flyers within the neighborhood, organizing neighborhood watch meetings, and being the liaison with the police department's Neighborhood Watch program instructors.

When Zimmerman observed something suspicious and called it in, he was doing so as a Neighborhood Watch participant.

So, does that mean that he gives up his right to carry then?

j-mac

 

[Kreton]

Participating in a Neighborhood Watch program is not a job. There is no time clock. There is no "on-duty" status. All it means is that you are trained what to be on alert and what to do (and what not to do) when observing something suspicious and to call it in. You are to be the "eyes and ears" of the police. As Neighborhood Watch captain and depending on the program, you also have the added responsibilities of distributing flyers within the neighborhood, organizing neighborhood watch meetings, and being the liaison with the police department's Neighborhood Watch program instructors.

When Zimmerman observed something suspicious and called it in, he was doing so as a Neighborhood Watch participant.

That is not entirely true. NHW programs actively have people out on patrol and they go out at certain times. Joining a NHW does make a person forfeit their right to carry a weapon. By that logic we would be violating the constitutional rights of every who joined a NHW program and furthermore we would be discouraging people to help their neighborhood.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

he was on his way to Target or somewhere. He was not out on a NHW patrol. At that point he was resident who took action. He just happened to be a NHW captain. So if we are splitting hairs that has to be considered. He did not carry a gun while on NHW patrol. He carried a gun as a citizen.

This isn't about whether or not he was supposed to be carrying a gun or not; it's about whether or not he was a member of the Neighborhood Watch program and acting in that capacity when he called in suspicious activity.

It's a voluntary program which people are either members of or their not. It's not a job where one is "on-duty" only when patrolling. Patrolling, by the way, is an option which some members choose to do. Many neighborhoods have no one patrolling. Many neighborhoods have multiple members patrolling. Some consider themselves "patrolling" just when they are walking their dog. But the are not "off-duty" if they're not patrolling. They're still members of the Neighborhood Watch and they're still acting in that capacity no matter what time of day or night they call in suspicious activities.

 

[Kreton]

That is my thought as well. I am in the army reserves. Regulations prohibit me from doing certain things while on duty. Simple example, I have to shave every morning and must wear a hat while outside. That doesn't mean I have to put on a hat every time I go outside....only when I am "on duty"

If zimm wasn't on NW patrol, then the policies shouldn't apply. As a concerned citizen he could have followed martin.

Not saying that it wasn't stupid of him to do so, but it wasn't illegal and he didn't violate any HOA policies

they are not policies. FYI they are guidelines. Guidelines noone in a NHW program is required to follow. Furthermore the NHW program that set forth these guidelines has openly stated GZ was not part of their program and never registered with them. So their guidelines are not applicable to him.

 

[Kreton]

This isn't about whether or not he was supposed to be carrying a gun or not; it's about whether or not he was a member of the Neighborhood Watch program and acting in that capacity when he called in suspicious activity.

It's a voluntary program which people are either members of or their not. It's not a job where one is "on-duty" only when patrolling. Patrolling, by the way, is an option which some members choose to do. Many neighborhoods have no one patrolling. Many neighborhoods have multiple members patrolling. Some consider themselves "patrolling" just when they are walking their dog. But the are not "off-duty" if they're not patrolling. They're still members of the Neighborhood Watch and they're still acting in that capacity no matter what time of day or night they call in suspicious activities.

So whether he is acting as NHW captain or a citizen could not possibly be determined? Also by volunteering to help watch a neighborhood does a person lose their constitutional rights? Is a person who never registered with the national NHW program even a part of the program? They don't seem to think so. And not being part of that program, is he bound by their guidelines?

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

If the court finds that he was acting in capacity of NW, it would see that the court has then, essentially, stripped him of his CCW. Anytime he leaves the house, it could be claimed he was performing his duties as NW and he should not have a gun.

The times when Neighborhood Watch members are discouraged from carrying a weapon is when they're patrolling their neighborhood, not when they're merely calling in suspicious activity.