17 year old kid shot dead by Neighborhood Watch "Captain"

[bobzilla]

If you would read this thread is pretty clear that most who post in here think Martin was an OG blood who kills for fun. Z just took out the trash, never mind the circumstances.

I hope you just forgot the purple.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

If you would read this thread is pretty clear that most who post in here think Martin was an OG blood who kills for fun. Z just took out the trash, never mind the circumstances.

I can't speak for anyone else who's been posting here, but when I first heard about this, it seemed like Z. was a paranoid nutcase who went off on some kid because he had his hands around a bulge in his pocket. After following the information presented - and reading the police report for myself - I've come to believe it's likely that M. initiated the violence and got shot to death as a consequence of his own actions. I fully realize we don't know - and may never know for certain - what happened in the minutes leading up to M. and Z.'s final confrontation, but based on information available about the two and what we think we know about events leading up to the gunshot that terminated M., it looks to me like a case where a stranger attacked a Neighborhood Watch captain going about his lawful activities, the attack of which is a criminal act, and was shot in self-defense when he was committing an act of attempted great harm upon that same Neighborhood Watch captain. It also appears that Z. is being tried, not as a potential murderer, but as a sop to race baiters who've threatened violence if they don't get a conviction (read that "revenge") and that the news media and the special prosecutor have played fast and loose with the facts of the case. That's my take on it, but I freely admit that it's the trial, and the evidence produced at that trial, which will determine Z's guilt or innocence.

 

[Tripp11]

If you would read this thread is pretty clear that most who post in here think Martin was an OG blood who kills for fun. Z just took out the trash, never mind the circumstances.

I've read almost all of it, and I don't see anything resembling what you posted above.

 

[Rookie]

All I know is your avatar is mesmerizing.

 

[Pocketman]

Given Z is the defendant and only eyewitness, his credibility is very important. Mr. and Mrs. Z playing games with the donated funds and then not being truthful, is not going to help his defense. Now the prosecution also has an "Al Capone" option.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Given Z is the defendant and only eyewitness, his credibility is very important. Mr. and Mrs. Z playing games with the donated funds and then not being truthful, is not going to help his defense. Now the prosecution also has an "Al Capone" option.

Not gonna argue with your view, but in any case, the Prosecution is going to have an uphill battle proving their case.

 

[KG1]

I can't speak for anyone else who's been posting here, but when I first heard about this, it seemed like Z. was a paranoid nutcase who went off on some kid because he had his hands around a bulge in his pocket. After following the information presented - and reading the police report for myself - I've come to believe it's likely that M. initiated the violence and got shot to death as a consequence of his own actions. I fully realize we don't know - and may never know for certain - what happened in the minutes leading up to M. and Z.'s final confrontation, but based on information available about the two and what we think we know about events leading up to the gunshot that terminated M., it looks to me like a case where a stranger attacked a Neighborhood Watch captain going about his lawful activities, the attack of which is a criminal act, and was shot in self-defense when he was committing an act of attempted great harm upon that same Neighborhood Watch captain. It also appears that Z. is being tried, not as a potential murderer, but as a sop to race baiters who've threatened violence if they don't get a conviction (read that "revenge") and that the news media and the special prosecutor have played fast and loose with the facts of the case. That's my take on it, but I freely admit that it's the trial, and the evidence produced at that trial, which will determine Z's guilt or innocence.

Good post but none of this matters. Z is guilty because he got out of his truck.

 

[CarmelHP]

Good post but none of this matters. Z is guilty because he got out of his truck.

That's right, but be careful, the lynch mobbers get VERY angry when you point out that is the gist of their assertions.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Good post but none of this matters. Z is guilty because he got out of his truck.

OK, this is the Florida Neighborhood Watch statute:
843.20 - Harassment of participant of neighborhood crime watch program prohibited penalty definitions. - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

Home > Laws > The 2011 Florida Statutes > Title XLVI > Chapter 843 > Section 20
2011 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 843
OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE View Entire Chapter

843.20 Harassment of participant of neighborhood crime watch program prohibited; penalty; definitions.—(1) It shall be a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, for any person to willfully harass, threaten, or intimidate an identifiable member of a neighborhood crime watch program while such member is engaged in, or traveling to or from, an organized neighborhood crime watch program activity or a member who is participating in an ongoing criminal investigation, as designated by a law enforcement officer.
(2) As used in this section, the terma) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b) “Organized neighborhood crime watch program activity” means any prearranged event, meeting, or other scheduled activity, or neighborhood patrol, conducted by or at the direction of a neighborhood crime watch program or the program’s authorized designee.

History.—s. 2, ch. 2004-18.




Z. was arguably conducting a neighborhood patrol, and it might be argued that he was "participating in an ongoing criminal investigation" since he had called 911 and the police were on their way to investigate the suspicious person. While this doesn't speak to who started the physical confrontation, it ought to put to rest that Z. was out of line in getting out of his truck.

 

[bobzilla]

I've read almost all of it, and I don't see anything resembling what you posted above.

I have read that people should never leave their vehicle, under any circumstances ever. You desrve to get punched i the face if you call in something that seems suspicious to you. You deserve to "pay" regardless of guilt or innocence and without a trial. Never help your neighbors, EVER. Let them fend for themselves and die. We have about 30 eye witnesses here who saw the whole thing go down and know EXACTLY how it happened....

That pretty much sums up the thread in a nutshell I believe.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I have read that people should never leave their vehicle, under any circumstances ever. You desrve to get punched i the face if you call in something that seems suspicious to you. You deserve to "pay" regardless of guilt or innocence and without a trial. Never help your neighbors, EVER. Let them fend for themselves and die. We have about 30 eye witnesses here who saw the whole thing go down and know EXACTLY how it happened....

That pretty much sums up the thread in a nutshell I believe.

That sums up several schools of thought on this thread, but it doesn't cover all views by any means, or even a majority of the views expressed.

 

[Eric05]

Regarless of what happens, this case will be a very important step forwards/backwards for the 2A and self defense cases here and on forward. Its been blown out of proportion in my mind. Due to the publicity it has gotten it will be referenced for many years to come.

 

[KG1]

That's right, but be careful, the lynch mobbers get VERY angry when you point out that is the gist of their assertions.

Very true. I wonder if Angela Corey will use this argument as the bases of her case as well?

"GZ left his vehicle therefore that proves he intentionally stalked TM with the intention of drawing him into a physical confrontation so he could gun him down"

 

[jedi]

M's family will be meeting with FL officals to request the "TM amdement" to the stand your ground laws in FL. Just saw a news blurp about that on Yahoo!

In a nutshell if you start a fight you can't then claim self-defense is what the TM amedement would say/do. I think that FL already has this but not sure.

 

[bobzilla]

That sums up several schools of thought on this thread, but it doesn't cover all views by any means, or even a majority of the views expressed.

It was a friggin JOKE. Geesh.....

 

[Bond 281]

M's family will be meeting with FL officals to request the "TM amdement" to the stand your ground laws in FL. Just saw a news blurp about that on Yahoo!

In a nutshell if you start a fight you can't then claim self-defense is what the TM amedement would say/do. I think that FL already has this but not sure.

Depending on wording, this would be an atrocious law. Who started a fight is murky enough, but if you don't take escalation into account it's just silly.

e.g. Someone calls your mother a whore, you push them, they pull a knife on you and stab you, you shoot them. You started the fight, you get murder charges. Justice is served. Right?

 

[semperfi211]

Judge cites Internet age, orders release of more evidence in Trayvon Martin shooting - Open Channel

 

[Kutnupe14]

This should be quite an interesting case. The Zimmerman's have already proven that the credibility is less than a defense attorney would desire. That's a HUGE issue to confront, given that Zimmerman is the only eyewitness. It's not to large a leap to infer that if he's willing to lie about one issue, concerning this case, he'd be willing to lie about others.
For what reason would a juror choose to believe a person who has already intentionally lied concerning this instance?

 

[sepe]

Depending on wording, this would be an atrocious law. Who started a fight is murky enough, but if you don't take escalation into account it's just silly.

e.g. Someone calls your mother a whore, you push them, they pull a knife on you and stab you, you shoot them. You started the fight, you get murder charges. Justice is served. Right?

If you feel like you need to push someone because they call your mother a whore, you've got a lot of growing up to do. Is everyone walking the streets in the 2nd grade? If you can't handle someone calling names, you're probably not mature enough to carry a firearm.

 

[88GT]

I have been successful at not posting in this thread to date, but I have a question.

Concerning the "lie" about the funds and Mrs. Z's perjury charge: is anyone drawing the distinction between funds raised solely for the defense of Z in this specific case and personal funds to be used at the Zs' discretion?

Because I can see her answer that they have no money as being truthful if in fact she considered the legal defense funds to be off-limits to them personally. It would have been wise to make the distinction verbally, in court. I haven't seen this angle discussed and wondered if that was by design on the part of people attempting to control the outcome, by accident on the part of Mrs. Z and lawyer for not having the gray matter to create the distinction and make it a part of the testimony, or by default since it isn't an issue, legally, anyway.

Thoughts?