"Oh, you say it was self defense? Sorry to bother you, you an go home now. We'll clean this mess up and wait for someone to claim the body"

It's something else. Probably a crime. Obstruction of justice, maybe.

... coverup from the get go.

so connected.

Drug/alcohol test on victim. Not on killer. So much stinks it's disgusting.

He wasn't a local judge. That means he wasn't all that connected.

inquiry into policies and practices of the Sanford PD. Its actions (and inaction) themselves border on the criminally negligent, imho.

He was not a Watch Captain.

Without the gun, he would have been just an annoying busybody. With the gun, he was a dangerous vigilante.

either way he is an egomaniacal cop wannabe. He still would have had the right to watch and even follow and even ask the kid what he was doing. Then things change based upon who grabbed who first, and it sounds like Zimmerman most likely did. Maybe the kid tried to walk away again and Zimmerman then grabbed him. That is what I suspect happened. Zimmerman was clearly after this kid to make sure "the asshole didn't get away" as he said. Then he wanted to hold him for the cops. He was hoping to catch a burglar to make a name for himself. Guess he became famous another way didn't he? Or should we say infamous?

Watch who flat out said that EVERY one of the N. W programs are registered and that this program WAS NOT ONE OF THEIR PROGRAMS. He then went on to say that 2 of their major tenets was NO WEAPONS, (not even Mace) and no confrontation, that the Watch programs are supposed to be the eyes and ears of Local law enforcement. Straight up said that this was a self appointed vigilante with dangerous intentions.

all the wrong reasons.

he was the only person doing the "neighborhood watch". The guy appears to be a gun-toting wannabe who decided vigilantism was the right route to take in his 'hood.

or armed. Sanford PD has a sanctioned NW but Zimmerman wasn't part of it.

"I'm disappointed that people are trying to put blame onto the program when it's not the program's fault," said Wendy Dorival, who coordinates volunteer programs, including Neighborhood Watch, for the Sanford police. "Neighborhood Watch is not what took his life away."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/os-trayvon-martin-neighborhood-watch-20120321,0,5554619.story

In an HOA meeting some weeks prior to Zimmerman's shooting of Trayvon Martin, another resident of the community was kicked out of the meeting because he complained that Zimmerman was profiling him. This strongly implies to me that the HOA knew and approved of what Zimmerman was doing:

George Zimmerman Neighbors Complained About Aggressive Tactics Before Trayvon Martin Killing

At an emergency homeowner’s association meeting on March 1, “one man was escorted out because he openly expressed his frustration because he had previously contacted the Sanford Police Department about Zimmerman approaching him and even coming to his home,” the resident wrote in an email to HuffPost. “It was also made known that there had been several complaints about George Zimmerman and his tactics" in his neighborhood watch captain role.

The meeting was attended by Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee, the detective assigned to the investigation and an unnamed member of the city council, according to the homeowner’s association newsletter.


Note that the police chief was present at that HOA meeting too. The police knew what Zimmerman was doing in the weeks leading up to this killing. This is a very important article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/12/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin_n_1340358.html

In other early news reports, an officer of the HOA expressed support for Zimmerman's "patrols" -

"He once caught a thief and an arrest was made," Cynthia Wibker, secretary of the homeowners association in the gated community where Zimmerman lives, told the Miami Herald. "He helped solve a lot of crimes."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-killer-had-brushes-prior-153033731.html

Also, Zimmerman's friend and neighborhood watch colleague, Frank Taafe, has been all over the news stating that the neighborhood HOA knew and approved of their actions:

Amidst the controversy, Frank Taaffe, a fellow ndeighborhood watch captain and friend of Zimmerman came to his defense.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/22/trayvon-martin-case-frank_n_1373659.html

Frank Taafe has a "violent and racist past," according to news reports of his prior arrests:

http://slumz.boxden.com/f5/mar-24-george-zimmermans-friend-frank-taafes-violent-racist-past-revealed-mug-shot-pic-1724926/

That was started last September. It was not affiliated with any national group but had undergone training with the local police department volunteer coordinator.

of someone who not only works in law enforcement but teaches it as well. The points you lais out are not only salient but common sense to any one who possesses a passing knowledge of the facts of the case. It's also obvious to anyone who lhas listened to what has come out about the actual commission of the crime, the actions leading up to it and the subsequent "investigation" following. Based on what you have laid out, which frankly is just the latest in a line of commentary of legal professionals I have heard from. Thank you again, RB In Maine!!

seen. This case should have been treated just like a possible murder or manslaughter, the "stand your ground" thing be damned. Let the DA and grand jury worry about that later. If the cops had done a better job IMMEDIATELY, they could and should have concluded that "stand your ground" wasn't going to fly here. It is a bs law that should be facing massive court challenges. Lawful force and self defense are always available as a court defense without this "stand your ground" crap. The cops are there to do good investigations and get the needed evidence in as timely a manner as possible. One thing that must come out of this is a re-working of "stand your ground". It can and must not serve to make cops worry about doing their due diligence and making the self defense argument function like some kind of instant amnesty from possible wrongdoing. What message does this send? Just shoot someone, they are dead, then plead immediately that you "stood your ground" again an attacker that can't now testify. This case was bungled according to everything I have learned about it. Now the feds and special prosecutor need to fix it. And if they don't bring a criminal case, the family needs to sue for wrongful death. They would have a very good case.

development because they allowed zimmerman to play cop and in fact, continued to do so even after some of the homeowners complained about his overzealous actions.

That there was never a need for SYG since you can always defend yourself. The only effect SYG laws have is to encourage people to be more flagrant with their weaponry.

So in this case, I see SYG having an effect on what happened with Trayvon Martin but it's not an effect that could even be discussed at a trial.

Let's hope this case does go to trial and is heard by an unbiased jury.

There are too many questions unanswered, and too many people are looking at this as a political football!

With a lot of info. All the 911 calls. 2 Police reports....the two cops first on scene included. sanfordfl.gov. Looks like they went for manslaughter but could not make a case...or would not. The first cop called in the "major crime unit" after cuffing Zimmerman and putting him in his car. They took him back to the station and a detective interviewed him before his release. A witness to the actual fight said that Zimmerman was screaming for help and Treyvon was on top of him punching him out. The witness claims he told them to stop fighting then went in to call 911 and by the time he got to his phone then it was over. The Police Form lists Florida Statute 782.11 as what they were going for in charging. It is a low manslaughter. None of the witnesses seems to have seen the start of the fight. The cop says in his report that Zimmerman was telling the Paramed who was tending his wounds that he...Zimmerman was yelling for help but nobody would help him.
You must see the mountain a new prosecutor will have to climb. All the cops will be on record as defense witnesses. So will the responding Paramedics. What a mess.

I've heard this mentioned but I haven't read any article or seen any video that quotes anybody actually saying this. Do you have this information?

edited to correct

A local FOX affiliate.

I don't believe it until I see credible sourcing.

Did the local Faux News say where they got this info, or did they simply make it up?

17 yr. old male. Afraid of death threats. He also would not let his picture be shown. He saw the fight and told them to stop. He is now in fear of his own life.

The Martins are going to sue him through his Homeowners Association. Brilliant. Sue all the witnesses.

Suing the witnesses would not be too smart. But this case is so over the top now it is not even about the incident. It is about people fitting the rumors and unproven assumptions to match what they "want to believe." In my opinion it will not turn out well. If Holder can not make a case then what? Will this be another Duke case? Standing on Shaky Ground? Anyway I am going to be checking the ACA case this week instead of going round and round in my head about this fiasco anymore. They have the audio of the hearing on at 1 o'clock.

of him and had him pinned down punching him out? My grandson weighs 30 pounds more than I do and just stands up when we're rough housing to get me off of him.

I wonder if Zimmerman staged the whole affair. I mean, he could have grabbed Martin by the front of his hoodie, fall backwards pulling Martin down on top of him, making it look like Martin was beating him. That scenario would definitely be convincing to any witnesses that Zimmerman was the one being assaulted. Of course, he then had the grounds to shoot and get away with murder.
Just speculation on my part but worthy of note.

And this is coming from someone who is not completely confident in the way that a lot of police jurisdictions perform their sworn duty in this country.

You laid out a very common sense approach, with an eye towards getting to the bottom of the truth.

The failure, however, of the Sanford PD to apply the very same dedication to duty that your approach entails will unfortunately damage the degree to which justice can be applied to the case of Trayvon Martin's death.

Even to a non-law enforcement person, such as myself, this is painfully obvious.

I'm down in south Florida at the moment and am surprised to find that some people here go around during the day with their phone receiver clipped to their ear, which has the unfortunate effect that when they are talking on the phone it appears that they are talking to themselves.

Which makes me wonder if Zimmerman misinterpreted Trayvan Martin walking along in the dark and apparently chatting to no one as scary.. 'being on drugs' or something.

What a terrible tragedy.

be following the lad but isn't that stalking?

intimidate or harass. This was an in-the-moment situation, obviously not a longer term and repeated situation. Zimmerman did have the right to follow Trayvon at least for a short amount of time to continue to watch what he was doing. However, it was BAD judgement, not what a neighborhood watch person SHOULD have been doing, and we discover that he also was pursuing him after already having profiled him as a burglar. Zimmerman referred to Trayvon as "one of these assholes that always gets away" and may well have also used a racial epithet just as he starting to follow Trayvon. (They are still analyzing the tape.) That goes to Zimmerman's intention and frame of mind. He had assumed that Trayvon had bad intentions. He profiled this kid. And then he confronted the kid. So while he did technically have the right to merely follow Trayvon for a short time to monitor his behavior further, he then went beyond that. He did so with an aggressive attitude, and possibly a racist attitude, and he ended up aggravating the situation bigtime when he confronted Trayvon. Evidence shows that Zimmerman first repeatedly said to Trayvon, "What are you doing here?" And then an altercation apparently ensued. Zimmerman apparently did not have his gun out at that point, so we can't say he immediately intended to just walk up and shoot Trayvon. That didn't happen.
But when the altercation ensued, one obviously instigated by Zimmerman, Trayvon very arguably was now defending himself, and then Zimmerman pulls the gun and shoots. Zimmerman went in aggressive and aggravated this situation, and from all I can see should have been best charged at least with manslaughter or the Florida equivalent for reckless homicide.

up until now I thought what Zimmerman did amounted to stalking. I see the difference now. Thanks for taking the time to clear this up for me

RB's definition may be a generic version of what most states have on the books.

I would have thought that was obvious.

observer to this case and not part of the investigating/legal teams

was the legal definition of the word, the one law enforcement have to operate under

He's talking about the legal definition of stalk, not the English definition of stalk.

Here is the legal definition as applicable to Floridian law. It may need to be updated


Please read and make your own decision... I am open to learning for everyone here... Thanks for your patience





http://www.esia.net/State_Stalking_Laws.htm



FLORIDA

Section 784.048. STALKING; DEFINITIONS; PENALTIES. 1997.

(1) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.

(b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern a conduct composed of series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.

(c) "Credible threat" means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.

(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4) Any person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person that person's property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(5) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses a minor under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, so. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(6) Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section.

Actually, that is good.

Thanks!

That is my opinion, only...

Jury charge him for stalking and murder?

It depends on how the court interprets it. And even if that interpretation defies logic, it will stand unless appealed to a higher court.

have any answers for about a month or more unless public pressure speeds things up.

He is not a law officer and the kid had every right to be where he was. Pursuit in this case is harassment, at a minimum, if not in itself some type of assault.

That's certainly a right Trayvon Martin had, although it was one he was gunned down for exercising.

Look, if you suspect someone in your neighborhood, you have a right to follow them around too. What Zimmerman didn't have a right to do is play amateur cop and start an altercation. I suspect we'll find out that Zimmerman tried to restrain Trayvon because he thought the teenager was going to "get away"--a right Zimmerman didn't have.

"What are you doing?" All that is not illegal, but it looks like Zimmerman went in with more aggressive intentions and was the one who instigated the confrontation which most likely went well beyond just following at a distance and monitoring a situation.

Both Trayvon and Zimmerman had a "right" of passage in that neighborhood...Neighbors and residents have a right to speak to someone, even observe them and follow them. But neither has a right to assault and confront someone. And in the case of Zimmerman, he was acting as a neighborhood watch, although self-appointed, not in an official registered capacity. Assuming he was following the guidelines stipulated by neighborhood watch group rules, he should not have been allowed to carry a weapon. In any event, he didnt listen to the instructions by Police dispatch to not follow. The police were on their way. But the entire situation in my opinion was bungled by police and there were no proper procedures of interviews and forensic data collection conducted.

My hit from the beginning and why I believe the police cut Zimmerman a "break" is that he is a Police Informant or the cops in Sanford are dirty and Zimmerman has something on them. Either way, I simply cannot understand why else Police could have bungled this so badly and not done anything.

As you say, informants or possibly someone who has something on the department or who participated with them in illegal activities like burglary or theft. There is something going on in that town.

If you have a reason to suspect another individual, you can point to it. If you don't and can't, you may be committing a crime, and I bet, especially if you use a vehicle and / or a gun to do it.

and not in the repeat type of stalking way either. A serial harrasser and a stalker are not always the same thing.

a short time. There just is no law against that. People can do that. It does not become harassment unless it goes on too long and/or becomes a repeated situation. He had the right to do that. Bad judgement, but had the right. He even had the right to call out and ask him what he was doing there. Just no law against that. It was then in how he approached and confronted Trayvon and instigated an altercation that became VERY BAD judgement, and especially if he tried to continue to stop Trayvon or grabbed him or said "You stay right here until the cops come, etc." or intimidates Trayvon to the point Trayvon felt he needed to defend himself that he goes way beyond what he should have done and possibly even assault. (Just the following at a distance and asking what he was doing is not a crime.) Then, having been the aggressor pushing the situation and being older and much bigger and with Trayvon screaming for help, whatever the situation at that point, he then feels he needs to use deadly force? Can't buy that. Trayvon brandished no weapon of any kind, he was much younger and smaller, he was alone, and Zimmerman could not have felt his life was in danger. This is manslaughter at least.

to this situation, it makes me wonder how many times he tried to chase someone out of his neighborhood. Most people aren't ready at all times to grab their gun and jump into their car. That requires thought or planning or practice.

I would say, from the time he left his car to 'persue' the kid on foot.

The SYG law that citizens who have killed in defense are immune from arrest and prosecution (paraphrase). The main problem is, it says unless there's probable cause at the scene, this immunity is to be given. No police protocols are given for making that determination, it just says a citizen who does this is immune from arrest. And it doesn't give any provisions or procedures on how or if that immunity can be revoked.

I hear, the Sanford police sent a narcotics cop to do the investigation, not a homicide detective. So, they sent somebody who probably was not familiar with SYG, and had no idea what he was doing if he decided there was no probable cause for arrest.

SYG gums up the works so badly here, I doubt that Zimmerman will even be arrested on manslaughter or murder charges. I feel so sorry for Trayvon Martin's parents.

I hate SYG. To make homicide, of any sort, more convenient is a dumb idea. I could understand giving more leeway in court, but justifiable or not, a homicide has to at least be looked into. To do it any other way is to say homicide is no big thing, that somebody's life at that scene was worthless, and without due process, either. Florida's seeing the results of that now.

Legislators must not approach criminal law with the idea that arrest, investigation and trial themselves are injustices. (Though it might be literally true, they should approach that problem separately.) Otherwise the entire system of jurisprudence becomes unworkable.

he did have the right to move around his neighborhood and monitor Trayvon for at least a short amount of time. Bad judgement maybe, but that is just not a crime. It just isn't. I would agree that at the point he confronted Trayvon, his judgement became even worse. Then if he tried to restrain Trayvon, then that becomes assault and Trayvon had the right to resist that.

I never said Trayvon was obligated to stop, answer questions, or whatever. Not at all.

But we must also be fair at this point and we can not assume Zimmerman's intention was to just walk up and immediately shoot and kill, because that didn't happen. However, as I have said, it appears Zimmerman instigated the situation and in the end the circumstances do not justify using deadly force. So Zimmerman gets at least a manslaughter charge or the Florida equivalent. Is that better?

Last edited Mon Mar 26, 2012, 12:24 AM - Edit history (1)

As I said before, your assessment of the less than fully disclosed events is agreeable. I might add that the bulk your analysis was expertly done.

Yet, the nagging pangs of doubt arose when I saw that you started your 4th paragraph with this:

Even for a layperson.

you are just squealing like a colon under pressure to let off some hot air!

That is the trouble with laws, Few Americans have a GRASP of them...we need to change that! BTW

Here is the legal definition as applicable to Floridian law. It may need to be updated


Please read and make your own decision... I am open to learning for everyone here... Thanks for your patience





http://www.esia.net/State_Stalking_Laws.htm



FLORIDA

Section 784.048. STALKING; DEFINITIONS; PENALTIES. 1997.

(1) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.

(b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern a conduct composed of series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.

(c) "Credible threat" means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.

(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4) Any person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person that person's property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(5) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses a minor under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, so. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(6) Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section.

press charges "based on Zimmerman's statements and evidence at the scene". But they didn't collect all of the evidence they could have, so how do they prove that assessment? Shouldn't they have collected any and all forensics at the scene in case Zimmerman was lying?

crime scene investigation and analysis and full forensic evidence collection protocols completed on both Zimmerman and Trayvon.

I suspect some primitive atavistic stuff was happening. Victim is an unidentified young black male subsequently in the morgue as a "John Doe" for 24 hours, survivor\assailant is a white male arguing self defense. Cops are white males. I suspect they viewed the victim as less than a person, thus no need to collect forensics.

Do you think Berlin Police investigated any Berlin Jew's claims of vandalism following Krystallnacht? Same thing going on. Viewing the other as 'not human' allows for professional practices to be set aside. Also remembering the white guy in Boston who claimed his wife had been attacked and killed by an unknown black male asssailant, setting off a Boston PD rampage among the Boston African Americam community a couple decades ago.

I in no way excuse that behavior and it brings the policies and practices of the Sanford PD into deep question. But it may just explain what seems from my vantage point as almost criminal negligence on the part of the Sanford PD.

It's refreshing to hear an opinion that is not only based in real-life experience, but is reasoned and rational as well. While none of us really knows what happened there, your scenario is very plausible. I too believe that Zimmerman probably provoked this confrontation, which means that the "stand your ground" law absolutely does not apply.

In self-defense classes, I have had it drilled into my head that an armed citizen (a) is not a cop, (b) has no right to detain anyone, and (c) has no business challenging anyone. Zimmerman must have been absent that day.

will hurt this case? It's too late to do a full forensic protocol and I was wondering if they will have enough evidence to bring charges against Zimmerman. My biggest concern is that this case has been so botched that Zimmerman will get off.

Thank you.

overly aggressive and even possibly racially motivated behavior on the part of Zimmerman. You still have all the circumstances too: the racial profiling, the size and age difference, that Trayvon was alone, that Trayvon was completely unarmed and screaming for help, that Zimmerman clearly instigated and aggravated this...I think you still have a strong case for at least a reckless and unlawful use of deadly force under the circumstances.

It's been eating at me and I don't know anyone with experience to ask about it. You've added valuable information and I'm very grateful.

at the scene? Placement of the body, etc. etc. that would give a context to the story told by Zimmerman? Clearly, his "status" as a wannabe immediately gave him privileges with respect to how he was treated by local police. As you indicated, a thorough look at this would have required detaining him on grounds that someone had died as a result of his behavior, and the investigation would lead to further information. Seems very keystone cops to me.

thanks for the insight.

Following somebody is not a felony. Talking to somebody on the street is not a felony. Aggressively confronting somebody, as long as there is no physical assault, is not a felony. Unless there is physical evidence or eye-witness testimony to contradict Zimmerman's lies, he will get away with murder because his testimony will place him within the parameters of Florida's SYG law.

The fact that he is lying does not mean SYG does not apply. That is a huge part of the problem with these laws: the murderer exploiting these laws needs only to make sure that there are no surviving witnesses and then his version of the events can be readily fabricated to fit within the SYG parameters.

At that point, they will be gifted with motivation to do something about themselves. But I still think there's something more going on here because this is the third instance of them standing down and then trying to lose one of these cases that we know of.

If there was a 'Duty to Retreat', Zimmerman would have claimed he tried to retreat from Martin and couldn't safely do so. (A bullshit claim, mind you, but he's already claiming he was on his way back to his suv.)

Without evidence to show that it wasn't true, we'd be in the same place we are now.

Why supporters of these laws think it is a good idea to make it easier for sociopathic murderers to get away with murdering people escapes me. That they *could* do it under the prior 'obligation to retreat' standard is not a good argument for making it easier.

But this law doesn't apply, based on the details we have so far, so how can it be implicated? I'm not following your logic here.

Lots of criminals try to take shelter under various laws and protections that they legally can't due to circumstance. That doesn't mean the laws they're trying to use are bad, or should be repealed.

That is why Zimmerman was not arrested: the law was applied. That is simply a fact.

.. to arrest him?

as they knew he had pursued Martin.

Zimmerman might still have gotten off, but he likely would have been arrested. More to the point, he might not have done what he did.

If the cops bought Zimmerman's defense (which would have likely changed based on 'duty to retreat'), they wouldn't have *had to* to do jack shit. Given their history, I think it's naive to assume that they'd suddenly change behavior with the addition or lack of one particular law.

I think there's a fundamental lack of knowledge about how the law, state's attorneys, DA's, judges, and juries work going on here.

eta: changed 'forced' to 'had to'- mixed up this post with another.

SYG laws in Florida have created an "open season" mentality. The cops are powerless when the onus is on the dead guy to prove it wasn't self defense. Can't say I'm surprised to find you supporting this law.

And only charged the teen once video of the assault was posted to youtube?!?

The cops who gave a wink and a nod to two security guards beating another black man?!?

*That* police department?!?

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

"From hearing what the on-scene witnesses are saying and all other evidence I am aware of, the local cops bungled this."

That assumes the action (or lack thereof) of the local cops was full of errors. From all appearances, their actions seem to have been quite deliberate and thought-out. What they did (or didn't do) IN THEIR EYES was not mistaken--not then and not in retrospect. They only bungled it in terms of proper procedure. They did no forensic testing on Zimmerman's hands or clothes, let him go home with his weapon, took 72 hours to inform the victim's family, didn't question the perp beyond superficially, etc. Proper police procedure looks to have been the last thing on their minds.

but it was incorrect. Trayvon's father reported him missing when he did not return home. I do not know if his report was on the evening of the 26th or the following morning. But according to the police report, they spoke to him late in the morning of the 27th and showed him a photo of his dead son, who he identified. So, due to the missing person report, the family knew he had been shot about 15 hours after the shooting occurred.

I keep seeing this and I know it is because of the early reporting, so just wanted to correct it

I know, all the cop dramas and such have made us come to expect being able to see / read every bit of information that a department has on hand.

In real life, it isn't usually like that.

Now, considering the repeated incidents by this department of looking the other way or actively covering up crimes when the victim was black? I wouldn't trust them as far as I can throw them.

That's why I'm happy to see the DoJ step in.

On what grounds? As I understand it, Martin was in a public place. What gives Zimmerman the right to stop and question him? Does anyone get to stop anyone in a public place and interrogate them? I think not. If he was suspicious of Martin's intent, as he apparently was, he should have let the police handle it.

Personally, I've met a few of these Zimmerman-types in my life. They spend a lot of time fantasizing about these types of "showdowns" with "the bad guys" and game out how they would "bring them to justice". I think Zimmerman's whole life was spent immersed in this reality/fantasy world and he finally acted on his impulse to take down what he was sure was a criminal.

What I don't get was why he wasn't arrested on the spot and charged with suspicion of murder. I've never seen a case like this where the killer just gets to walk away from the crime scene without the PD knowing what really happened. It is unfathomable to me that the PD simplyy defaults to the story given by the only party who happens to be the only one still alive at scene.

I can say most anything I want to you in public (local swearing statutes excepted ), and you can choose to ignore me and go on about your business.

"if he had just been open and forthright, he wouldnt have been shot"

part of conflict resolution and management stuff Ive learned in my life -formal education, not anecdotal - if you are in an argument, confrontation, and you start to walk away, the other person following you is an act of aggression. If I am trying to physically disconnect myself from our argument, and you reclose that distance - expect to get hammered in the grill by me.

The last part is not part of my education;0

OP is right on!

Nobody saw how the confrontation escalated. I wish you wouldn't perpetrate right wing talking points here.

Glad to see an unbiased analysis from law enforcement's side.

I'll refrain using words I like to use to describe this "Professional."
A policeman DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to stop someone unless there has been a reason in the area to stop them PERIOD! I.e. a crime. This was a 17 year old kid, followed, assaulted, then murdered by someone abusing powers police DO NOT HAVE. A 17 year old KID, chased by a THUG!
All of our hearts go out to the Martin family.

living there might have the right to inquire of someone what they're doing there?

Spot on RB - I don't have your experience but I do know how any incident is normally handled - it is handled, controlled, and investigated.

Thanks for the post

"This guy Zimmerman is a power-hungry cop wannabe out to fuel his ego and be a "hero", all ego driven."

He is more of a danger to the community than anyone else.

Do you believe Zimmerman had a legal right to continue pursuing the boy even after the 911 person told him to stand down? ...

TYY

and shouldn't the police either have taken Zimmerman to a hospital or have called for ambulance?

(Assuming you give any credence to them..)

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin%20Lakes%20Shooting%20Initial%20Report.pdf

A broken nose produces a lot more blood then a mere nose bleed. It'd be interesting to know when Zimmerman was told he had a broken nose.

Zimmerman's lawyer claims his nose was broken. If this is true and he was bloodied up and the back
of his shirt was messed up, you would think he would have some documentation (he didn't go to a doctor with a busted nose?) to prove his claims. Seem to me that Zimmerman isn't trying very hard to defend himself. This stinks of cover up.

That is one of the clearest and most impartial analysis of this situation that I have heard/read.

Facts and balanced analysis. I must add, though that the outrage is not unreasonable given the questions that have been raised.

Now, Let,s see how the defense try to murky up the case.

Unfortunately for Trayvon it happened in arguably the most uncivilized, corrupt state in the Union. In Florida, whomever survives is the victim and the dead one is obviously the criminal with no questions asked (unless there are some pesky eyewitnesses).

This is why I hate the whole SYG and CCW industry-any knot head who takes a course and can pass a rudimentary back ground check can now pack a heater almost anywhere (our state legislature is busy getting rid of what restrictions are in place). I don't really worry about criminals-I worry about the pipsqueaks who suddenly feel embolden with their shiny new Glocks and are just itchin' to try them out. If I were king, Florida would be the last place where SYG was allowed.

Was that know to the local police? Do you think this could have played a part in treat his son with kid gloves by the local police, especially considering the number of times Zimmerman called 911 to report really stupid (like 7 year old kids) suspicious individuals?

Not sure if he'd be able to pull any strings, but I bet he knows what story to tell.

At least where I live we have an 'unlawful detention' law, not sure about FL. Meaning, that it is unlawful to stop, detain or imped the travel of someone against their will. No one, not even a law officer, can stop me on the street to ask me questions if I don't want to stop. I am free to answer or not answer any question and leave when I want. Even so much as putting your arm across a doorway to prevent a person's egress can be considered unlawful detention. So, even a law officer has to have enough evidence to detain me before they can imped my free travel or to question me. So Zimmerman, as a private citizen, had no right to stop (i.e. question), detain or imped Martin for any reason, at least where I live. They have to had know that Zimmerman was following him and approached him or Martin was afraid for his life and fought back. By giving Zimmerman the right to stand his ground and face no charges based on self-defense, creates a presumption of guilt on the part of Martin and presumes he was in the middle of a criminal act and therefore had no basis for self-defense. The whole thing doesn't make sense on its face to me.