Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Um, yes they DID take the gun from Zimmerman. It's right there in the cop report. They took the gun and it's in evidence.
It's not clear if they kept the gun upon Zimmerman's release, only that the officer took it at the scene. I can't find anything official that states one way or the other if they kept it and for how long.
Like most police departments they kept the firearm pending an investigation.
The report doesn't indicate that his injuries (whatever they were) were serious.
That report you linked to indicates that they entered the weapon into evidence and labeled "TS-1".It's not clear if they kept the gun upon Zimmerman's release, only that the officer took it at the scene. I can't find anything official that states one way or the other if they kept it and for how long.
Like most police departments they kept the firearm pending an investigation.
Maybe, but that's not clear. There is no report released yet that indicates what happened to the gun after the officers left the scene. I certainly hope they did .. if not, that's just one more thing they have to answer to.
I agree. Zimmerman's going to walk, regardless of whether he's ultimately charged.I honestly think it's too late in the game to ever truly determine WHO made it physical beyond the shadow of a doubt.
I know what I believe happened. I heard the tapes. I saw the map and the streets and where the initial call was placed and where the shooting occurred. I saw how far Zimmerman followed (chased?) Martin. Two-tenths of a mile isn't very far, but in a situation like this it's far enough for Zimmerman to have heeded the advice of the dispatcher and let the police check Martin out. IMO he went looking for a confrontation. I don't see a 17 year old, 140 lb kid with a can of ice tea as his only weapon initiating an attack on a man who not only outweighs him by a hundred pounds, but is toting a gun besides.
Zimmerman saw himself as the community protector. He saw someone he didn't recognize, and didn't believe belonged in his neighborhood. He took it upon himself to track this kid, and things spiraled out of control. Once it was over, and Zimmerman realized what he'd done, he had an "oh shit!" moment. He knew that people had to have heard the cries for help. He knew he was fucked if police decided he had no cause to shoot this young man. He also knew the law. So he tells paramedics he called for help and no one came. jmo, of course.
That may have been how it actually happened, Emma. However it happened, this is tragic. This did not need to happen, and it could have been averted at several points. If Zimmerman had simply followed Martin from a distance and observed, nothing more would have happenedIf Martin had not run, and Zimmerman had not chased him, nothing would have happened-Martin would have simply walked to his father's house, and that would have been it. From the facts we have, here's what I think actually happened-it makes a few assumptions, but not many:
This went bad, when Martin ran. This was a normal reaction. It was dark, Martin knew someone was following him; that made Martin nervous, and likely angry; he hadn't DONE anything, after all. Martin decided to run. Zimmerman decided to chase him, and caught up to him, probably close to the final scene. The verbal confrontation ensued. Zimmerman grabbed or tried to grab Martin. Martin responded like a typical 17 year-old; he was scared, and really angry now. Martin twisted or spun away from Zimmerman, winding up slightly to the side of and behind Zimmerman. The final piece of the puzzle comes into play here; if the iced tea was in a can (I did not know that earlier) here's where it comes into play. A full soft-drink can makes a reasonably effective improvised weapon of sorts, and it was all Martin had. Martin swung his hand, holding the can of tea, at Zimmerman's head, and connected. That was a heavy enough blow knock Zimmerman , already off-balance, to the ground, and accounts for the cut on the back of Zimmerman's head. Now, the tables were turned, and Martin had the advantage over his larger antagonist, now stunned and on his back. Martins's adrenaline was up; he was both scared, and fighting mad-again a normal reaction for a 17 year-old in that situation. He smacked Zimmerman in the face again with the can, trying to end the fight. If only he could put the bigger man out of action for a few seconds, he could get away and sprint to his father's house. Zimmerman , now losing the fight, panicked and yelled for help as Martin hit him again. Now, Zimmerman was desperate too; he reached for his gun, and used his other advantage, size, to push the smaller and lighter Martin off, drew, and fired one shot. A 9mm bullet will kill, but does not have a lot of knock-down effect; Martin hands still in front of him, fell forward to the ground, fatally hit.
Zimmerman's story about being hit as he got out of the vehicle is most probably false. He most likely DID grab Martin, or at least, lunge at him in an attempt to do so, BUT, unless someone saw that, it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and without that proof, and without further evidence, and with Martin dead and unable to tell the other side of the story, there's nothing else to contradict Zimmerman's account of events that is conclusive. There might be enough evidence to indict Zimmerman for 2nd degree murder, but not enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's claim of self-defense is false. in the end, though, Zimmerman may walk free, simply because his lawyer tells the jury the Trayvon Martin in fact DID have a weapon that night-a can of iced tea, and as crazy as it sounds, that just might be how this ends. That ONE, seemingly insignificant detail, after all Zimmerman did wrong, might turn the case in his favor...because the end of a twelve oz aluminum can full of liquid, swung with the strength of even a 140 lb. kid, is hard enough, and has enough weight behind it, to fracture a human skull and kill, as any forensic pathologist can demonstrate.
It's awful. You're right, though.Moron.I can't wait to see a reply, an argument from racist stupidity, that a large black buck, with thicker bones and skull, and a more developed muscular structure, than that of a Caucasian man, couldn't inflict harm on the man.
Zimmerman was bleeding from both the back and front of his head, and was at one point on his back (in grass, so it's unlikely the wound on the back of the head came from a fall, but more likely from a cowardly black jumping him from behind (maybe with a rock) - which is the testimony of the victim).
No doubt, the black dragged Zimmerman down, perched on top, and proceeded to maul Zimmerman, while the Jewish Mr. Zimmerman cried like a little girl for help.
It's a troll...don't feed it, it might breed.
The report doesn't indicate that his injuries (whatever they were) were serious.
The police chief and state attorney found Zimmerman's injuries rose to the level to support imminent fear of great bodily harm or death.
I know..... they are racists covering it up.
That report you linked to indicates that they entered the weapon into evidence and labeled "TS-1".Like most police departments they kept the firearm pending an investigation.
Maybe, but that's not clear. There is no report released yet that indicates what happened to the gun after the officers left the scene. I certainly hope they did .. if not, that's just one more thing they have to answer to.
Ah. I see. Yes, that would be interesting to know.That report you linked to indicates that they entered the weapon into evidence and labeled "TS-1".Maybe, but that's not clear. There is no report released yet that indicates what happened to the gun after the officers left the scene. I certainly hope they did .. if not, that's just one more thing they have to answer to.
Yeah, I know. I'd like to know if they kept it after his release from questioning and for how long if they did.
Another lie from you, unless you consider that EMTs cannot provide medical attention.I wonder if that's a guestimate from the cop on the scene or what was found on autopsy. Even numbers like that lead me to believe it was what the officer estimated as Martin's size. The autopsy height and weight would have been more precise.
And as Zimmerman did not receive any medical attention,
....
All within the LAW in Florida in certain circumstances..... he does not have suffered a fractured skull. He was able to put a bullet in the deceased despite HIS injuries. ....
What do you mean with "GJ"?Arguing the can was swung as deadly force when the killer got out of his vehicle armed is a possibility, the GJ will explore that I hope.
Correct.He admitted to the shooting so why do you think a test confirming that he made the shot would be necessary?
And, ONCE AGAIN, the police CANNOT to a BAC on anyone unless they have probable cause or the subject consents to it.
THAT is the LAW in ALL states as it is a Constitutional right.
As I understand it, what's unique about this law is there is no duty to retreat at any point.
Correct.He admitted to the shooting so why do you think a test confirming that he made the shot would be necessary?
And, ONCE AGAIN, the police CANNOT to a BAC on anyone unless they have probable cause or the subject consents to it.
THAT is the LAW in ALL states as it is a Constitutional right.
And that would be in the context of probable cause where a law was possibly violated, in this case theres not only no PC, but theres no potential broken state law to begin with.
As I understand it, what's unique about this law is there is no duty to retreat at any point.
Its the legal presumption that the defendant had a reasonable fear that deadly force was necessary and the [legal] presumption that the intruder intended to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. In addition, the defender/gun owner has no duty to retreat, regardless of where he is attacked, so long as he is in a place where he is lawfully entitled to be when the danger occurs.
Obviously, when one acts in accordance with the law, hes not subject to investigation.
Hey, whoah, waitaminutenow...."intruder?" What intruder?Correct.He admitted to the shooting so why do you think a test confirming that he made the shot would be necessary?
And, ONCE AGAIN, the police CANNOT to a BAC on anyone unless they have probable cause or the subject consents to it.
THAT is the LAW in ALL states as it is a Constitutional right.
And that would be in the context of probable cause where a law was possibly violated, in this case there’s not only no PC, but there’s no potential broken state law to begin with.
As I understand it, what's unique about this law is there is no duty to retreat at any point.
It’s the legal “presumption that the defendant had a reasonable fear that deadly force was necessary and the [legal] presumption that the intruder intended to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. In addition, the defender/gun owner has no duty to retreat, regardless of where he is attacked, so long as he is in a place where he is lawfully entitled to be when the danger occurs.”
Obviously, when one acts in accordance with the law, he’s not subject to investigation.
Section 776.013Correct.He admitted to the shooting so why do you think a test confirming that he made the shot would be necessary?
And, ONCE AGAIN, the police CANNOT to a BAC on anyone unless they have probable cause or the subject consents to it.
THAT is the LAW in ALL states as it is a Constitutional right.
And that would be in the context of probable cause where a law was possibly violated, in this case theres not only no PC, but theres no potential broken state law to begin with.
As I understand it, what's unique about this law is there is no duty to retreat at any point.
Its the legal presumption that the defendant had a reasonable fear that deadly force was necessary and the [legal] presumption that the intruder intended to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. In addition, the defender/gun owner has no duty to retreat, regardless of where he is attacked, so long as he is in a place where he is lawfully entitled to be when the danger occurs.
Obviously, when one acts in accordance with the law, hes not subject to investigation.
....
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
Another lie from you, unless you consider that EMTs cannot provide medical attention.And as Zimmerman did not receive any medical attention,
....
All within the LAW in Florida in certain circumstances.
What do you mean with "GJ"?Arguing the can was swung as deadly force when the killer got out of his vehicle armed is a possibility, the GJ will explore that I hope.
GRAND JURY, and a fractured skull requires more than an EMT.
Link?The report doesn't indicate that his injuries (whatever they were) were serious.
The police chief and state attorney found Zimmerman's injuries rose to the level to support imminent fear of great bodily harm or death.
Good luck getting one from him. I've asked, too.Link?The report doesn't indicate that his injuries (whatever they were) were serious.
The police chief and state attorney found Zimmerman's injuries rose to the level to support imminent fear of great bodily harm or death.
Another lie from you, unless you consider that EMTs cannot provide medical attention.
All within the LAW in Florida in certain circumstances.
What do you mean with "GJ"?
GRAND JURY, and a fractured skull requires more than an EMT.
What the fuck are you talking about? Did the drugs you are on make you hallucinate a fractured skull?
No, this law removed that obligation. I'm kind of surprised to see that you don't have your facts in a row.I didn't say he was. It was just AN example of the law of justification.
And frankly, I don't know that Zimmerman has ANY valid claim (even a color-able one) to the defense of justification or necessity.
All I WAS saying is that there ARE situations where even though the cops know full well that a person pulled the trigger, they also see no valid probable cause for an arrest. Justification (self defense or defense of another) is but one set of examples of that principle.
The author of this law (name escapes me, I linked it earlier) said that it was intended to allow deadly force in situations where one felt an imminent threat of death or bodily harm, or to protect another from same, or if witnessing ... a felony? Can't recall what the specifics are there. In any case, he said that by following Martin, Zimmerman negated his defense by this law. fwiw
I don't know if that's true. A neighborhood watch guy might be well within his legal rights to follow a person for any reason. And if (I have no idea if the "if" is valid or not), but IF the situation then escalates, the fact that he had followed him should have no bearing on the matter.
I do know that in NY, before a person permitted to employ deadly physical force in reliance on the law of "justification," among other things, the person is obligated to retreat if he can do so in complete safety (except for cops or folks inside their own homes where there is no duty to retreat). I don't know if FL has a similar provision in their law.
