I listened to Zimmerman's 911 call. He was NOT a police officer. He was speaking to 911 who told him not to follow the kid, and he followed him anyway. He even said the kid ran, and commented, "they always get away." 911 told Zimmerman they were sending someone out and they didn't need him to do anything. How can he claim self-defense when the kid was trying to get away from him ? There were also 911 calls from people nearby who heard the teenager calling for help and crying. The calls are all on Youtube.
He shot an unarmed person to death, while claiming self-defense. More from the 911 call:
ZIMMERMAN: ****, he's running.
911: He's running? Which way is he running?
ZIMMERMAN: Down towards the other entrance of the neighborhood.
911: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
ZIMMERMAN: The back entrance. [pause] ******* c00ns.
What was the crime, beside shooting an UNARMED teenager ? Florida law on the use of deadly force for self-defense is very specific, if the person is NOT entering your personal dwelling, which was not what happened here.
the neighborhood had been burglarized three times in less than a year. the burglers had been getting away. anyone with nothing to hide in 2012 doesn't run from one of dad's neighbors trying to pull up in a car. he didn't shout his obscenity. likely had it pushed into his not-white head by one of his white neighbors on several neighborhood post-burglary meetings. doubtful he ran out to the cops "self defence!". the idiot 17 yr old was wearing a black hat and black coat with no ID. that and running doesn't scream shady does it? open-shut case for lazy cops who don't mind leading witnesses and concerned citizen to bend their stories.
So playawiz, you're saying you are willing to pay for any crime committed by someone who looks like you, so others can sleep at night ? very noble.
Oh please. Zimmerman's 911 record is two pages of him following around people. Zimmerman is a paranoid racist who went too far. The police let him go for murder based upon his "background". Zimmerman was spoiling for a fight. Riding around in his car armed following children. Self defense my ***.
I totally agree with you Wanderartist. Zimmerman is an over agressive, racist ****. This man is the son of a former magistrate judge. Obviously, the father must have some clout in order for his son not be arrested and charge for MURDER!!!
I thought the cops really stepped in it, by not arresting him. Weird.
Yes, yes, yes, yes A MILLION TIMES. That guy tracked down and killed a child in cold blood.
No, he had no authority to act unless he was directly threatened or somebody in his presence was directly threatened. Self-defense statutes are clearly delineated after all these years. He also had no legal authority to act. Neighborhood watch is a volunteer position without much training. The police are psychologically evaluated for fitness to serve. This guy was not. Taking the law into his own hands will not reap for him good rewards.
The child died without cause. I am white, female, middle aged, legal reform activist.
There is no doubt that the circumstance should be investigated. As with any law, there is a circumstance that will test it. The problem is not the law that stands in this circumstance. But, the reluctance to investigate the matter to it's completion to see exactly what happened.There is no question politics abound here.
It is my belief that an over zealot person acted beyond necessary force to subdue a predator (yes I believe the young black person going to the store was arrogant in his action, and I also believe that the community watch person was over zealot) A fist fight, is no excuse to use deadly force. I believe that the death in this circumstance could have been avoided and feel that ever element of the law should be used to convict the assailant. But I do not believe the law that enables one to protect themselves is the issue or at fault here.
Pardon, how is a "young black person going to the store ARROGANT in his action" ? Maybe I'm misunderstanding ?
You are right bijoux going to the store was not his arrogance, but considering evidence that the vigilante was on his back on the ground with a bloody nose. My theory is that the vigilante (wrongly) confronted the victim, The victim (wrongly) moved aggressively at the vigilante, his doing so, was in my opinion his the "arrogance" and so typical of urban young who do not respect authority. As I stated in my answer. There was no reason to use deadly force. I also said that the assailant was over zealous in his action. But as always it takes two and in this case I believe there were two powder kegs ready to blow. It is up to the court to hear the evidence in this case and convict or dismiss as the evidence states. This is how the law works. Attempts to remove a persons right to self defense should not be the action here. Finding justice for all involved is.
Now that I have more information. If I were on the jury and had all the fact. I would throw out the stand your ground defense. He was told by police to not pursue. The young innocent kid was on the phone telling his girl friend that some crazy guy was chasing him. Both of those instances meant he did not have a self defense argument. If convicted, I hope he gets the chair!
He ought to be charged with murder yes. The police made all attempts to brush it under the rug and treat it as a non-issue.
I say yes. People have to realize you can't just go around killing people. I believe we did not create life so we shouldn't be the one who takes a life.
The cops didn't even take his gun away for ballistics testing--they just sent him home with it. Then they tested the dead teen's corpse for drugs, but never tested the shooter for anything.
the kid was wearing a black coat, had no ID and ran when one of his dads neighbors tried to pull up to talk to him. how was anybody to know that he wasn't a druggie out checking out the next mini-manse to knock. there'd been three burglaries in less than a year in that community.
So, he deserved to get shot because he saw some guy twice his size pull up and come at him. I'd have run, too. Plus the police SPECIFICALLY told the killer NOT to follow or approach the kid. And even if he had no ID, no one knew that until after he was dead--some nut with a gun has NO right to demand ID of anyone. As to robberies--being head of the neighborhood watch might be a good cover for robbing houses for all anyone knows.
Do you know this guy personally ? How can you "assure" anyone ?
Neighborhood watch is several steps below a rental cop mall security guard. Anyone can do it. Even unstable lunatic racists who kill children.
You cannot be serious to think running in the rain is a crime. He was not reported to be looking in peoples homes or cars, was not seen doing anything illegal. Those are the facts.
Neighborhood Watch also has guidelines and those are to ONLY be the eyes and ears for the police. Not the ARM OF THE LAW. He had no right to leave his car.
he absolutely should be charged with murder. but he also should have been in lockup on feb 20th, and should not have been judged by nancy grace and all of half-informed armricawooooowolllooloo before appearing before a judge and jury of clear headed jurors.
Even if that kid was committing a crime I am pretty sure the guy that shot him life was not in any danger!
What that guy did was done in retaleation not self defense! He did not shoot him up close and personal, he shot him from a good distance, the kid was unarmed! I dont care what color any bodys skin is, that makes it murder!
It will be for the courts to sort out if he should be charged with Murder. I think the danger here is of people over reacting and taking away a victims right to self defense. I don't want to see laws that say you can't use deadly force to protect you or your family's life.
Under Florida law, Section § 776.012, self-defense or the defense of another person provides for the following standard jury instruction:
"The defendant would be justified in using non-deadly force against the alleged victim if the following two facts are proved: (1) Defendant must have reasonably believed that such conduct was necessary to defend himself or a third person against the alleged victim's imminent use of unlawful force against the defendant or the third person; and (2) The use of unlawful force by the alleged victim must have appeared to the defendant to be ready to take place."
The 911 call indicates Zimmerman is telling them the teenager is running AWAY from him.
The teenager didn't TOUCH him. HE shot an unarmed child who was trying to get AWAY from him. To use another example, if as a woman I'm "sick and tired" of being hassled by men, do I then have the right to shoot you dead because you are passing on the street by my home and I don't recognise you ? Florida law (read it carefully) says I do not.
Maple, what you're saying makes sense, and I have no problem letting the law handle it. The poster would give the shooter carte blanche to kill someone for being in the "wrong" neighborhood, because of past burglaries, whether he was in danger or not.
im not quite sure. i wasn't there.
i think people are all guilty until proven for their innocence.
This question is bizarre. Trayvon was rightfully on the property and going to his fathers home. He was not committing a crime, nor did anyone say he was, he was walking home.
If there was a reason for him to shoot the child, he needed to have proof. There are no documented injuries on Zimmerman. He did not even go to the hospital.
Those are the facts.
ABSOLUTELY!!!!! Im not buyin that self defense claim. Zimmerman is a murderer.
I hope he burns & rots in hell.