Skip to comments.Trayvon Martin’s death was ‘ultimately avoidable’: Florida police report
Posted on 05/18/2012 5:58:15 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Trayvon Martin's death was avoidable.
Thats the conclusion of a new police report on the unarmed teens killing at the hands of George Zimmerman in Sanford, Fla.
"The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement, or conversely, if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each party's concern," the document by Sanford, Fla. Police said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
But then he wouldn't have a birth certificate.
You say that you have real evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman -— I say that you are not being truthful.”””
I sincerely hope that you are never attacked by anyone & that IF you are the survivor & the perp is dead that you have to explain your way out of the mess.
Coroners report says 71” and 158 lbs if I recall correctly.
As for Zimmerman's statement...I don't believe it any more than I would have believed Martin's statement had he ended up the one still living. It is self-serving and, without any neutral corroborating statements, should be seen as such.
Thanks, for your reply.
Stay safe and have a great life!
If you have real evidence that proves who started the fight then please post it....I'll check back later for it.
Thanks for the kind thoughts.
“Zimmerman and Martin, either by design of one or my pure bad luck for both of them, find themselves face to face. Martin is angry at being followed. Zimmerman is intimidated and either reaches for or shows the gun. If this happened (and it is as likely as any scenario) then Martin had every right to beat the stalker with the gun into submission.
My thinking on this is that Zimmerman is a jerk who got in over his head and had to shoot his way out.”
You are free to think that, just as others are free to speculate that Martin was a thug on the path to a life of crime. Neither are supported by facts. And here’s the important part, the state is not going to be able to argue your case. Maybe they can spin a story in the closing argument, but they won’t be able to demonstrate Zimmerman, jerk or no, started it in the manner you postit.
Notice that from what we’ve learned in the affadivit, various comments, police reports, and the evidence nothing says they’re going to prove at trial that Zimmerman threatened Martin by reaching for or pulling his gun. Had he done so, yes, obviously Martin would be free to defend himself. As it is, they’re arguing Zimmerman started the fight by following and confronting Martin earlier, and ultimately by getting our of his truck after a non-cop didn’t order him not to.
They don’t add that extra little bit of Zimmerman doing something to excuse Martin’s violence after they run into eachother. Because there’s no evidence for it, only your speculation based on what a jerk you think Zimmerman is. Why you’re allowed to assume Zimmerman started it without evidence but others aren’t allowed to do the same for Martin is beyond me. But it doesn’t matter. The trial’s the thing now, and in that world they have to prove Zimmerman started it and had a depraved mindset to convict on murder 2.
Martin had THC in his system, so you are completely wrong in your claim. He was stoned, that is illegal and it was in his system during this episode. Care to retract the above claim?
Do you mean something like this at The Blaze?
March 24, 2012
A new witness to the Trayvon Martin shooting has come forward, claiming the Florida teen did in fact attack neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, according to media reports.
Zimmerman has said he shot the 17-year-old in self-defense, though Martin was reportedly carrying only a bag of Skittles and an iced tea when he was killed. Despite a loud national outcry, Zimmerman has not been arrested or charged in Martins death.
According to Tampa Bay Fox affiliate WTVT-TV, what the witness says he saw could bolster Zimmermans claim that he shot Martin in self-defense:
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, he said.
Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.
The witness only wanted to be identified as John, and didnt not want to be shown on camera.
His statements to police were instrumental, because police backed up Zimmermans claims, saying those screams on the 911 call are those of Zimmerman.
When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point, John said.
On Friday night, Zimmerman attorney Craig Sonner appeared on CNNs Anderson Cooper 360 and said he client sustained a broken nose and a head laceration on the night of the incident.
His nose was broken, he sustained injury to his nose and on the back of his head he sustained a cut that was serious enough that probably should have had stitches it was an injury that was done by Trayvon Martin, Sonner said.
Hmmm, according to police and ME reports, skittle boy’s knuckles are all mashed up and then we have Zimmerman’s face all mashed up.
Did Zimmerman decide to assault skittle boy’s knuckles with his face?
Hmmmm...please post a link to any reliable witness who saw Martin start the fight. Without one your post is speculation.
Show me where in John's statement he says that he saw the beginning of the fight.
Here's a little help...he doesn't.
“then I think Zimmerman would have been arrested on the night of the incident. Since he would have failed to follow the rules and standards of the neighborhood watch program - no guns allowed”
Those are just rules, though, right? I don’t assume it’s illegal for neighborhood watchmen to carry weapons. Breaking the rules oughtn’t to remove your right to self-defense. I suppose it could tip the scales in favor of supposing you were out looking for trouble and therefore probably started the fight. But then the preponderance of evidence should also show that, and not in the manner that Zimmerman leaving his car is pretended to prove he started it.
What I’m saying is, it would only be one out of many bits of evidence. After all, don’t vigilantes get to defend themselves, too, so long as others attack them? Even if they’re out looking for a fight, I mean, and through discipline restrict themselves to waiting for a fight to come to them. Or is that a form of entrapment?
Zimmerman’s brother said that Zimmerman said they were struggling for the gun. And, you avoided the question...did you ever see anybody start a fight and then get his ass kicked? It’s simple...either yes or no will suffice.
Anyone who doesn't cower behind the curtains and let the "professionals" handle it is a "macho fool."
Add in his pathological inability to admit, "hey, I was wrong," and he's not hard to figure out at all.
Really? It shows that he never grabbed or pushed or punched in the chest...none of which would leave a mark on Zimmerman or Martin?,P>
It shows that he didn't show the gun or reach for it?
Please explain in detail (AND WITHOUT SHOUTING) exactly how the evidence shows this.
Hey, trailer park badass - post a link proving Martin attacked Zimmerman and I'll say "sure, absolutely I was wrong". Go ahead...post it.
Zimmerman himself also told police that Martin saw his gun and went for the weapon. At which time they struggled and he shot Martin.
And yes, I have seen someone start a fight and then lose. I am currently involved in such a thing on a blog, where this guy, completely devoid of reality, started speculating things which do not match the evidence. He is losing the fight, but doesn’t even realize it - it is almost sad.
THC lingers in the system for days in the occasional user and for weeks in the habitual user. Trace amounts in the system do not mean that the person was stoned. It means that at sometime in the past days or weeks he smoked.
I chose this line to highlight - it backs my outrage. That said, I could have chosen any line you wrote - highlighted it - and agreed with it. You're good - realistic and knowledgeable. I assume you've had experience in law enforcement and that you're a good person. Thanks for sharing.
“Sorry but all you state is evidence that there was a fight and that Zimmerman was losing”
I’m sorry if you’re not aware that analysis of wounds can be used to suggest which party was the attacker and which defended themselves, and that this is considered evidence. But that’s the case, and if Zimmerman was the attacker you would expect to see different wounds on himself and Martin. The eye witness testimony is less robust, but it does show that at some point Martin was on top of Zimmerman, as Zimmerman said, and that at some point Martin turned into the aggressor if he wasn’t to begin with.
If Zimmerman was losing a fight he started, as you and Zimmerman agree he eventually was, he would have to have been losing from the very beginning. As in, he didn’t get in any blows, or any blows of great consequence, at all. Which is possible, but again, we’re only looking for evidence that Martin started it, not absolute proof.
You are correct to assert nothing proves beyond a reasonable doubt Martin was the attacker. But I’m not seeking to do so, and all you asked for was evidence Martin was the attacker. Well, there you go.
Then tell us exactly how you know for a fact that this is not what happened, especially given the fact that Zimmerman was pro-active (if not aggressive) in following Martin and Martin had, according to Zimmerman himself, tried to avoid contact by running away.
“As for Zimmerman’s statement...I don’t believe it any more than I would have believed Martin’s statement had he ended up the one still living. It is self-serving and, without any neutral corroborating statements, should be seen as such”
Ah, but you must know, I’m sure, the way these things are used is to test them against the evidence. If the defendant’s comments and testimony don’t jive with the evidence it doesn’t automatically mean he’s guilty, nor does it mean he’s innocent if they do. But his statements lining up with the evidence can in itself be treated as evidence of his innocence. And I’m not aware of one instance in which Zimmerman’s account of events is contradicted by the police report, the 9-11 tape, the medical evidence, eye witness testimony, etc.
Of course, one reason his story isn’t contradicted by what we know of who started the fight is that we don’t have any direct, inarguable evidence of who started it. But that doesn’t mean his statements fitting with the known evidence isn’t itself evidence.
Please show where, in law, a suggestion is evidence.
The point is a simple one. There are many freepers swearing that Martin attacked Zimmerman and getting truly upset when asked for proof. Regardless of how upset they get, none can provide proof beyond 'suggestions'.
“Martin had THC in his system, so you are completely wrong in your claim. He was stoned, that is illegal and it was in his system during this episode. Care to retract the above claim?”
Well, the previous poster made a claim about Martin’s actions “in this episode.” THC, or the remnants thereof, stay in your body for a while. I’m not sure we’ve been given a time frame for what they found in Martin, but presumably they won’t be able to determine whether he was high at the time of the attack, or had gotten high at some point prior.
The court will consider his statement to be self-serving. The SC has declared that it is assumed that anybody will lie to mitigate responsibility or punishment. I do not take his statement as fully truthful.
“If Zimmerman was losing a fight he started, as you and Zimmerman agree he eventually was”
Was losing, I mean, not that he started it. Sorry if that was worded incorrectly.
“Then tell us exactly how you know for a fact that this is not what happened”
You keep moving the goal lines. First it’s show me evidence Martin started the fight, then it’s prove it to me. First it’s I know Zimmerman is a jerk and started the fight by getting out of his truck, following a fleeing Martin, then brandishing his weapon. Then you’re the disinterested observer who doesn’t know anything for sure, and is only looking for other people to justify their versions of events beyond a reasonable doubt.
At long last, there is evidence Martin started it, though not direct evidence and not evidence meeting the reasonable doubt standard. There is no evidence Zimmerman started it, beyond him “following” and “confronting” Martin (whatever that means) and not staying in his truck to wait for the police. And that is no evidence at all.
I agree that this whole prosecution is unjust, from the evidence we have seen.
When you “stand your ground” and shoot an aggressor, you have to be darn sure you did not pick the fight. You don’t get to kill the guy just because he is winning the fight you engaged in. That is all the prosecutors have - to try and make it look like (racist, angry, mean, awful) Zimmerman was picking a fight by “stalking” little skittles boy until Zimmerman got the fight he was egging (it was skittles boy who was standing his ground againt the big bad stalker man) on so he could shoot Martin.
That does not match the testimony and evidence, but they will milk emotions and tar and feather the racist whitey, er, I mean the American mutt (hispanic, white, black). Unless the prosecutor has evidence we don’t know about, this is a political show trial steeped in race hate and hatred of the second amendment’s right to self defense.
“Please show where, in law, a suggestion is evidence.”
Suggested is just the word I chose to describe it. Like all evidence, it doesn’t absolutely establish anything, but rather only leads reasonable people to believe something. I don’t have to show you where interpreting wounds to determine who attacked and who defended themselves has been used as evidence because it’s to common to require proof. That’d be like asking me to show where, in law, what is suggested by eye witness testimony is evidence.
“There are many freepers swearing that Martin attacked Zimmerman and getting truly upset when asked for proof. Regardless of how upset they get, none can provide proof beyond ‘suggestions’”
That’s not the point, really. You seem to get upset, too. The point is that when asked for evidence, no matter how pissy they are or how often they accuse you of being a crypto-leftist, they can produce it. And that’s all evidence often is, by the way, a “suggestion.” A suggestion that, like I said, would lead reasonable people to a certain conclusion. But a suggestion nonetheless.
The Sanford Neighborhood Watch guidelines have been pretty widely published, but to be honest, they're not really relevant. Neighborhood Watch is not a job. It's established that he was carrying a gun legally, and that "following" is also legal. And aside from all that, Zimmerman was not on a "neighborhood watch" patrol, he was on a personal errand (to Target, I believe.)
:: I have no prejudice toward Zimmerman at all. ::
Here, let me help you out...
“Zimmerman was a jerk...”
“One was a macho fool...”
To echo your thread-mantra: If you have actual evidence that Zimmerman is a “jerk” and a “macho fool” then post it. If you don’t then you have pre-judged Zimmerman and by extension are “prejudiced”.
“The court will consider his statement to be self-serving.”
The jury may find it persuasive, especially if it never changed and jives with known facts. That’s why they have defendants testify, when they do: because their stories can be persuasive.
“The SC has declared that it is assumed that anybody will lie to mitigate responsibility or punishment”
Well, duh. No one needs men in black to tell them that. The point is that Zimmerman’s account of the events is important to establish his credibility, and that’s paramount in a case like this where the defense won’t merely deflect the prosecution but will assert a positive case in the form of Zimmerman being immune due to his having killed in self-defense.
You aren't avoiding someone if you deliberately approach a person, punch them in the face, knock them down, straddle them, and repeatedly smash their head onto the ground.
My thoughts too. We live in BRA where blacks can say any kind of crazy arse *hit and it will fly as gospel truth in the mainstream media. But the truth comes out in the comments section where the comments tend to be to the right of FR (if there is a comments section)
There is No Evidence of a Fight - there is Evidence of an ATTACK
There is No evidence that Trayvon was ever hit, scratched, or even had his hair pulled.
One person attacked an unsuspecting person - and that person followed the Law in using Deadly force to prevent imminent Great Bodily Harm.
Trayvon jumped him - and was in Control.
In addition, the autopsy found the bullt hole. along with powder burns as well as trauma to Martin's knuckles. No facial injury to indicate Zimmerman hit him first as per your claim.
Even if it were the case that Zimmerman started the fight, once Martin had him on the ground and Zimmerman was calling for help, Martin would have the obligation to cease the pummelling. If he didn't Zimmerman, would be perfectly within his right to shoot him since he could not retreat with Martin on top of him.
The 90 year old war veteran husband was beaten and his jaw broken. He was shot in the face numerous times with a BB gun and sent to the hospital in critical condition.
The 85 year old partially blind wife was RAPED and then BEATEN TO DEATH.
Can you just imagine the pain, the humiliation, the horror that dear old lady experienced being gang raped by that pack of feral animals?
(the autopsy states she was raped. Dont think all of these animals didnt all participate)
And can you imagine the pain, the horror of that dear old husband having to witness this?
Mr. Strait died from his injuries last week.
Theres a lot more involved here than a home invasion and robbery.
WHERE ARE THE CHARGES OF A RACIAL HATE CRIME??
90 year old husbands jaw broken and shot in face with a BB gun numerous times?
85 wife year old semi blind wife RAPED and BEATEN to death??
Why does it take a foreign press to enlighten America as to this henious crime?
WHERE IS THE NATIONAL OUTRAGE?
Have they caught the rest of the gang of feral blacks who raped, tortured and murdered this elderly woman? Are they even looking? Not a word about it in the media.
“When you ‘stand your ground’ and shoot an aggressor, you have to be darn sure you did not pick the fight.”
Small point, but since so much has been flung back and forth about Stand Your Ground in this case, I thought I’d point out that if Martin was pinning Zimmerman to the ground as he and an eye witness testified, he had no ability to retreat and therefore can assert regular-old self-defense as opposed to Stand Your Ground self-defense.
“You dont get to kill the guy just because he is winning the fight you engaged in.”
Yes you do, if the other guy attacked you. You don’t mean a “figh you engaged in”; you mean a fight you started. And in order for you not to be able to assert self-defense, the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt you started it. I don’t think they can do so in this case. And certainly they can’t prove the depraved mind required for murder 2.
“That is all the prosecutors have - to try and make it look like (racist, angry, mean, awful) Zimmerman was picking a fight by ‘stalking’ little skittles boy until Zimmerman got the fight he was egging (it was skittles boy who was standing his ground againt the big bad stalker man) on so he could shoot Martin.”
Yes, you can make following sound more ominous by calling it “stalking” and confronting sinister by dubbing it egging on a fight. But following and confronting aren’t illegal, and you’ll need more than words to use them to show Zimmerman had no right to self-defense.
“Unless the prosecutor has evidence we dont know about, this is a political show trial steeped in race hate and hatred of the second amendments right to self defense.”
I want to believe there’s something more, and that prosecuters aren’t willing to throw their careers away and open themselves up to malicious prosecution charges for the sake of politics. But it’s happened before, and perhaps we have a new Nifong.
Like you say, there are only two possibilities. If one can be discounted, the other is proved.
One would have to believe that the CCW-carrying neighborhood watch captain, having given his name and location to the police, knowing the police were on their way, with a gun in his waistband, would throw the first punch against the suspcicious person he had been observing. Sorry, but that's preposterous, compared to the only other alternative.
Do you have a CCW permit? Do you carry concealed? Having done so for 25 years, I know from my experience and those related to me by others, that doing so makes one approach potential confrontation infinitely more soberly. And every class I've ever attended taught retreat first, and that physical confrontation while armed was to be avoided if at all possible. Whom you call "macho fools" in NYC are called "neighbors" down here where I live, and they don't seem to fit the liberal Yankee stereotype of the hothead with a gun. Your bias against concerned citizens like Zimmerman is obvious enough.
If you don't trust your own experience and judgment enough to pick one of the two ONLY possibilities, that's a You problem.
Were you on the Casey Anthony jury?
And where's your evidence that he didn't attack Zimmerman? If you've got the video or audio of the incident, or you personally witnessed it, then post it.
The DA in the case chose not to press charges based on the fact that the evidence they had would not lead to a conviction.
Well, it isn't really that cut and dried, either. There is a principle of proportionality, too. If I use "fighting words" to provoke you, or grab your elbow to keep you from walking away, then you hit me over the head with a brick, I most certainly have not forfeited my right to self-defense - with or without "stand your ground" laws.
In this case, you could substitute "hit with a brick" from my hypothetical to "punched in face, knocked head on pavement and pinned on ground to pummel."
We know from the documents released, and from sworn testimony by the police, that there is no evidence Zimmerman started anything. Still, to satisfy the speculations of some on this thread, let's suppose he did: what level of provocation would he need to have engaged in to forfeit his own right to self defense against the actions of Martin, which now seem to be pretty well established?
I can only think of one possible level of provocation by Zimmerman which would not leave a mark - brandishing his gun. And I am certain that is why the prosecution earlier implied that Zimmerman did just that. However, there is absolutely no evidence to support this theory.
“Were you on the Casey Anthony jury?”
I wouldn’t go there. If anything the Casey Anthony defense should be a model for Zimmerman. The state in that case couldn’t prove its case, merely relying on what was not a crime—i.e. failing to report the kid’s disappearance—to hint that she was the one who killed her. Well, Casey shutting her mouth for a month was far worse than Zimmerman “following” and “confronting” Martin and getting out of his truck. Someone killed Caylee, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was Casey.
But you can’t convict according to the “someone did it” mindset, nor by the “Martin was unarmed” mindset. Neither adds up to conviction. There was some evidence against Casey, in the form of internet searches, sticker residue, and trunk smells. Nothing to surpass the reasonable doubt bar, as the defense could reasonably posit that she drowned in the pool and Casey’s dad helped her cover it up. Likewise, Zimmerman could have started the fight and resorted to shooting once he was losing. But it also could’ve happened like I think it probably did, i.e. by Martin committing assault by attacking Zimmerman and Zimmerman shooting Martin.
I haven’t been following this case all that closely. Has anyone established why Martin was even in that neighborhood in the first place?