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 ...
What screen name do you use in the DUck pen? Your lame spew sure sounds like them.
“Nonsense. I offer alternate, plausible scenarios.”
You offered a plausible alternative scenario which you purported to believe. Or were you lying, and only said you thought Zimmerman pulled his gun, thus setting off Martin and removing his right to self-defense?
“It is based on his arrest history and the actions that we know he took before the fight.”
Right, like I said, nothing. Because nothing in those suggests to me he is a dope, nor that he murdered Martin as you argued.
“Oh, you think a crime was committed against Martin?”
No, I meant the crime you attribute to Zimmerman. The one he committed but which he shouldn’t be on trial for based on the lack of evidence. Remember, back when you said Zimmerman shot Martin only after he was losing the fight he started by following Martin and brandishing his weapon?
“How about you stop trying to tell me what I think and stick to my actual words.”
I try, but it’s hard when apparently you forget saying things.
“I do think that Zimmerman was ill-prepared for the situation that was created when he got out of the car and started to follow Martin.”
You think not only that but also that he ran into Martin and pulled his gun, thus starting a fight which he ended by shooting Martin once he was losing.
I really don't follow your "logic". Zimmerman getting his ass kicked...BY MARTIN = Martin attacking Zimmerman. It does not matter what was said between the two; verbal assault is not what is in question. Martin running away is not in question. The physical evidence proves that Martin physically assaulted Zimmerman. I don't know what else you want.
For your edification, here is the post to which I’m referring. You first offer a plausible alternative scenario:
“All we have are speculative scenarios. Here’s one that fits what we know - which is that Martin took steps to avoid a confrontation (he ran) and Zimmerman took active steps to close the gap (he got out of his car and followed)...
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.”
Then you go on to say:
“My thinking on this is that Zimmerman is a jerk who got in over his head and had to shoot his way out.”
Actually, literally that’s what both sides think. At least the sides that think either he started the fight without preplanning it or he started. But why the “jerk” part, then, except to pile on for no good reason? If you think he deserves to be called a jerk and blamed for getting in over his head and shooting his way out in a dangerous situation which he’s not responsible for, you’re a meaner man than I.
And why add it after the scenario you laid out except to imply that you believe it? Certainly I took it to mean that’s what you believe. Especially when you add in how vociferously you object to assertions that Martin started it, and never to the opposite.
Actually, self-defense is an affirmative defense to the charge, and the defense would have to prove it. To a lesser evidentiary burden ("preponderance of the evidence" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt"), but they do have to prove it.
In addition, it's my understanding that under Florida law, the defense can actually ask for a special pre-trial hearing to make the self-defense claim before the judge. If the judgment is that the claim meets the "preponderance" standard, Zimmerman would be immune from prosecution and from civil liability. I believe Zimmerman would have to take the stand in this hearing, although I am not 100% certain.
“At least the sides that think either he started the fight without preplanning it or he started.”
Whoops, I screwed that up. I meant either he started the fight without preplanning it or Martin started it. There are, of course, those who think Zimmerman was not in over his head and from first seeing Martin planned his every move in order for Martin to end up dead. These people are called “Sharpton” and “Jackson.”
If you don’t actually think Zimmerman murdered him, I’m sorry, but that’s what I thought you said. Please do tell us what you actually think happened, if for no other reason than to forestall future confusion.
In order to have the best hope of reasonable doubt or better being found, it would make sense for a defense to offer such an excuse or justification, if consistent with evidence. But strictly speaking a defense isn’t absolutely forced to do it. It could, however foolishly, leave it totally up to the intuition of the jury.
NOT - A - CRIME. NOT - A - CRIME. NOT - A - CRIME.
The 911 operator was suggesting Zimmerman NOT follow - FOR HIS OWN SAFETY...
Zimmerman has the right to see where someone is going in his complex - so do I - so do you. It's a friggin' free country. If I wonder what someone is doing walking on a street, I have the right to watch them. Did you know that?
Newspapers can take pictures of people on the street without permission. Did you know that?
If Zimmerman had wanted to murder the kid- and get away with it, he would NOT have called the police. Think about it.
Are you smoking wacky week, wtc911?
lol -- nailed it.
. THC in his system.......illegal. THAT is evidence... Cold hard fact. I'll let you go back to making a fool of yourself on this thread.
It doesn't matter. It's a free country. We're all allowed to follow whoever we want to follow in our communities. Community watch or not. The only time that's NOT allowed is by court order (stalking cases, abusive spouse - etc).
Newspapers even have the right to photograph people on sidewalks and follow them... just as I have that right - and you do too.
U The 911 operator suggested Zimmerman NOT follow Trayvon for HIS safety because following alleged criminals can be dangerous. The operator was not implying that all blacks have special rights the rest of us don't have...
Here is one for you: George Zimmerman. (who by the way has been consistent and not made any statements to make him seem unreliable).
Thank you for providing me free entertainment on this thread. I look forward to the second half later where I am sure you will make an even bigger ass out of yourself.
Certainly. Zimmerman possibly being unwise but legal is not the question at this circus trial and the lament from the Sanford police about this can only serve to mislead. They’d have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman picked the fight in such a way that Martin would have been legally justified in physically injuring Zimmerman in his self defense. No can do, short of some unimpeachable eyewitnesses or camera evidence.
People in the media are afraid they'll lose their jobs if there dare to criticize a black criminal. The press has been bullied into submission - then again, maybe they like living on their knees....
People in the media are afraid they'll lose their jobs if there dare to criticize a black criminal. The press has been bullied into submission - then again, maybe they like living on their knees.... Someone should ask the New York Times and Washington Post suck ups and find out if that's true.
I wouldn’t begrudge a more handsome remuneration to police personnel (that’s a rather small part of a police budget) IF, in return, retention could be based strictly upon merit evaluations into which integrity would be an essential element that couldn’t be outweighed by other factors.
We can NEVER forget that a trial is SUPPOSED TO BE UNFAIR to the state.
This is by design.
ALL the burden is on the state. ALL of it.
A prosecutor who tries to shift that burden via games with the jury will be toast.
You can make up your own story as you wish, but it is at odds with everything I read in the news. Where does it say that if you have a permit to carry, that you are prohibited to carry while on neighborhood watch? Our neighborhood watch has no such rule, nor does any that I know of.
The news reported that his call was to 911 on several occasions. In fact they have repeatedly reported that he told the 911 operator that he was following the kid and the operator said ‘we don’t need you to do that’.
Zimmerman was heading back to his vehicle when he was approached by Martin. Martin was aggresive and punched Zimmerman in the face and knocked him to the ground. Then Martin jumped on top of him and repeatedly slammed his head into the sidewalk. Zinmmerman’s shirt pulled up in the struggle and the gun became apparent. They both reached for the gun and Martin got the slide and Zimmerman got the handle according to the news.
The gun fired but the next round did not chamber because Martin had ahold of the slide, according to the news account. If I have it wrong, it is because the news got it wrong.
I am passing only what I read in the news as fact. If it is wrong, I am sorry, but I have nothing else to go on.
Ought to be toast, but the toaster is busted in a lot of places.
If these were conducted solely by a rotating board of average citizens, I wouldn't care how handsomly were paid. The point was that a police presence, even a mannequin in a squad car, does deter criminal behavior. It doesn't need to cost 50, 100 or 200k a year.
“Does a drunk beautiful woman, in a slutty dress, walking alone in a dark alley at 2:30 am lose the right to shoot her rapist?”
No but she is open to charges of shooting over a baited field!
Do you have any proof that Martin ran and Z chased him?
So, by your definition, confrontation by Martin is the opposite of avoidance, right?
Zimmerman told the PD operator that Martin ran. Zimmerman told the PD oerator that he was following him. I never wrote 'chased'.
To confront is the antonym of to avoid - I learned that in fourth grade. What did you learn?
I’ve learned that you’re on the wrong forum and poorly informed and in New York and just might be Mayor Bloomy himself! Should I post the link to DU or do you have it?
IF only there was no George Zimmerman.
IF only there was no vehicle.
IF only there was no Neighborhood Watch.
If only there was no neighborhood.......
Unfortunately, the hooded knucklehead was connected to his bruised knucklebone which was unfortunately connected to George Zimmerman's nosebone.....oh, hear the word of the Lord.
That is reality.
Oh, not believing that zimmerman is a red-blooded hero and not accepting any unproven supposition about what happened means I’m on the wrong forum? Please explain how...oh and, if you have proof that Martin attacked Zimmerman please post that too.
Yup! DU beckons!
>>The cops told him to stop following Traydmark
The cops did no such thing.
An emergency operator told him “We don’t need you to do that” after Jorge told the operator he was trying to keep St. Tray in sight.
It is noted that you could not post any link that proves what you say happened. No surprise.
Now, go back to DU, please!
You did not provide any proof that martin attacked zimmerman...only that there was a fight and martin threw punches. If you have proof that martin started it then post it...I’ll check back later to look at it.