George Zimmerman to be charged for killing Trayvon Martin
- Thread starter phncke
- Start date
how was Trayvon suspicious? I dont know, he was suspicious enough for zimmerman to call 911, he didnt have a track record of calling 911 on black men...something was different about this kid that night, we were not there so i cant tell you...
if i am a racist, then I guess that changes everything with my BLACK relatives...news to me brah
if i am a racist, then I guess that changes everything with my BLACK relatives...news to me brah
Feb. 26, 2012 (night of Martin shooting) – 7:11 p.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Suspicious activity
Report: Black male “late teens lsw dark gray hoodie jeans or sweatpants walking around area” … “subj now running towards back entrance of complex”
Feb. 2, 2012 – 8:29 p.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Suspicious activity
Report: “BM lsw: black leather jacket, black hat, printed PJ pants, he keeps going going to this” location
Oct. 1, 2011 – 12:53 a.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Suspicious activity
Report: Two black male suspects “20–30 YOA in [white] Chevy poss Impala at the gate of the community.” Zimmerman “does not recognize subjs or veh and is concerned due to recent” burglaries in the area
Aug. 6, 2011 – 10:20 p.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Suspicious activity
Report: Two black males, one wearing a black tank top and black shorts, the second wearing a black t-shirt and jeans … “Subjs are in their teens”
Aug. 3, 2011 – 6:45 p.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Suspicious activity
Report: Black male last seen wearing a white tank top and black shorts … Zimmerman “believes subject is involved in recent” burglaries in the neighborhood
April 22, 2011 – 7:09 p.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Suspicious activity
Report: Juvenile black male “apprx 7–9” years old, four feet tall “skinny build short blk hair” last seen wearing a blue t-shirt and blue shorts
Type: TEL
Subject: Suspicious activity
Report: Black male “late teens lsw dark gray hoodie jeans or sweatpants walking around area” … “subj now running towards back entrance of complex”
Feb. 2, 2012 – 8:29 p.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Suspicious activity
Report: “BM lsw: black leather jacket, black hat, printed PJ pants, he keeps going going to this” location
Oct. 1, 2011 – 12:53 a.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Suspicious activity
Report: Two black male suspects “20–30 YOA in [white] Chevy poss Impala at the gate of the community.” Zimmerman “does not recognize subjs or veh and is concerned due to recent” burglaries in the area
Aug. 6, 2011 – 10:20 p.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Suspicious activity
Report: Two black males, one wearing a black tank top and black shorts, the second wearing a black t-shirt and jeans … “Subjs are in their teens”
Aug. 3, 2011 – 6:45 p.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Suspicious activity
Report: Black male last seen wearing a white tank top and black shorts … Zimmerman “believes subject is involved in recent” burglaries in the neighborhood
April 22, 2011 – 7:09 p.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Suspicious activity
Report: Juvenile black male “apprx 7–9” years old, four feet tall “skinny build short blk hair” last seen wearing a blue t-shirt and blue shorts
6 calls in 10 months for someone trying to curb recent break ins and burglaries is not over the top, you guys are failing realizing the fact that there was a string of crimes being committed in the community. I hate to say it, but its not far fetched that Treyvon or the other people he called 911 on may have been actually committing these crimes...u guys just want to point the finger because they were black.
If the gated community had its own private security, homeowners wouldn't have had to police their own neighborhood. Private security patrols actually probably would have deterred crime. What is one to do, sit back and let it continue, or keep reporting suspicious activity hoping to get the subject or subjects captured? In Zimmermans case, he was obvious reporting suspicious activity and it wasn't stopping these crimes from being committed, so he investigated on his own, thus the domino effect that we do not know what happened, happened...
If I failed to follow the advisement of the police dispatcher, and decided to approach an unarmed person due to my personal and paranoid beliefs of what suspicious means and start questioning him knowing that I am armed...if he decides to whoop my ass, then I deserve that(of course I would try to FIGHT back)..He doesnt deserve to die, I deserve an ass whipping for trying to be a hero and not waiting for the cops to handle it...follow the kid all you want, but dont approach him..For all we know, Trayvon could have thought Zimmerman was a kidnapper or murderer himself...thats the problem I have...
HERE'S WHAT SUPERFLY SNUKA FOUND ON THIS LAW:
Florida
2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[22]
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
WE KNOW A FEW THINGS AS FACT...ZIMMERMAN FOLLOWED TRAYVON WHEN HE WAS INSTRUCTED NOT TOO...
AND OBVIOUSLY ENGAGED HIM...IF ZIMMERMAN MADE HIM FEEL THREATENED OR IN DANGER...WHICH ONLY THEM TWO KNOW
THEN I THINK HYPOTHETICALLY HE WAS WITHIN HIS RIGHTS...
NOW THE ISSUE THEN WOULD BE... AT WHICH POINT WOULD TRAYVON HAVE FELT THINGS WOULD HAVE BEEN SAFE FOR HIM TO DISENGAGE
Florida
2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[22]
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
WE KNOW A FEW THINGS AS FACT...ZIMMERMAN FOLLOWED TRAYVON WHEN HE WAS INSTRUCTED NOT TOO...
AND OBVIOUSLY ENGAGED HIM...IF ZIMMERMAN MADE HIM FEEL THREATENED OR IN DANGER...WHICH ONLY THEM TWO KNOW
THEN I THINK HYPOTHETICALLY HE WAS WITHIN HIS RIGHTS...
NOW THE ISSUE THEN WOULD BE... AT WHICH POINT WOULD TRAYVON HAVE FELT THINGS WOULD HAVE BEEN SAFE FOR HIM TO DISENGAGE