- May 30, 2000
- 4,707
- 257
- Disclosures
- Creator of: iGigBook Sheet Music Manager
George Zimmerman 911 call reporting Trayvon Martin - YouTube
At 2:08 after Zimmerman gives his name, he says "he ran".
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Another Shooting
- Thread starter Dr. Cheese
- Start date
- Status
George Zimmerman 911 call reporting Trayvon Martin - YouTube
At 2:08 after Zimmerman gives his name, he says "he ran".
Yes, we've already covered that. There is also almost two minutes of tape after that. What is your point?
edit: Actually, he gives his name after that point.
Phfffffft!!! Flag On the play!
He was convicted and sentenced to 15 years. I'll find the article and post it later. I'm only on page 8 or 9 of 20 in this thread, so if someone has already corrected this, my apologies. I just couldn't read further until I corrected this one. I am VERY familiar with this case.
And this is EXACTLY my OPINION of what happened. And let's face it,that's all any of us have is opinion. Now that the 911 tapes have been released, my OPINION is even stronger that this is what happened. The fact that Z had a bloody nose and grass stains is so I'm immaterial it isn't even funny. I can recount MANY times coming home bloody or with ripped or stained clothes. Two things that could NOT be discerned from that were:
- Whether or not I started the fight (usually I didn't but sometimes....).....
- Whether or not I WON the fight (usually I did, but sometimes......)
Also, municipalities vary in their approach to investigating crimes and charging suspects. I have friends in local LE and we've discussed this sometimes. Some people view ARREST as the PUNISHMENT. They view it as part of the investigation. Sometimes it is to their benefit to allow the suspect to move about "freely" until they've decided when and for what to charge them. Sometimes the person of interest's actions while "free" she'd new light on where the investigation should be focused. Not saying that's true in this case, but who knows.
It doesn't bother me that Z is not under arrest, as long as LE does it's due diligence and should they find (I believe they will) that his actions warrant arrest and trial, they act accordingly.
When I took my CCW class here in SE Michigan, the same area you live in, they told me to
- Aim at the torso. It's a bigger target and is usually sufficient to stop an aggressor
- Discontinue firing once the threat is no longer eminent. Meaning perpetrator is down or perpetrator has run off.
No, actually he wasn't convicted on what he was actually guilty of (second degree murder) but he was eventually re-tried on lesser charges (manslaughter) and convicted.
Well... most of the folks I know who have their CPL live on the west side of the state, in Militia territory. Heck, my Mom lives just a stones throw from the former Michigan Militia compound/training area.
And this is why my OPINION is what it is. For the sake of argument, let's say it was Z who was doing the screaming. The situation started when he started chasing Martin. That is the beginning of the AGGRESSION. Especially, given Dr. Cheese's oft stated point that Z was advised against continuing to follow M.
Now, three ways to look at what ensued next.....
1) M turns around and meets force with force. Under Fla law, or at least as it's been discussed here, that's allowable. For whatever reason, Z, the aggressor, uses his gun and M dies.
2) Z is able to catch M. A fight ensues. For whatever reason, Z, the aggressor, uses his gun and M dies.
3) Start with either 1 or 2. During the struggle, Z's gun accidentally discharges, M dies.
None of the reports I've read or heard indicates the gun went off accidentally, so 3 morethan likely is not the scenario. Given that, if I was LE, Z would have some difficulty explaining how he is not responsible for 1 or 2.
Different than "found innocent". Actually the murder 2 was a hung jury, not a "not guilty" or "innocent". In your original detail you didn't specify what he was charged with, just stated that he was found "innocent". That was not correct.
- May 30, 2000
- 4,707
- 257
- Disclosures
- Creator of: iGigBook Sheet Music Manager
The call I linked to is only 2:42 in length and contrary to what people were saying this is not a 911 call, this is a call directly to the Sanford Police Dept and I think the odds are high that Zimmerman is speaking to a LEO.
My point is that you seem to be missing an important point, i.e. Martin ran from Zimmerman, he didn't walk away as you described. You say you know that, but you omit that from your comments.
The defendant does indeed leave a trial after a hung jury as innocent, not because he is found innocent, but because any defendant is presumed innocent prior to conviction.
That being said, I think the proper thing to say after a hung jury is that the jury could not reach a verdict. To say that the defendant was found innocent is the same as saying the jury reached a verdict, which did not happen, furthermore, it would mean that the prosecution would be unable to retry the defendant, and we all know that retrials after hung juries are pretty common, especially when the defendant is charged with a violent felony.
Jury verdicts are either "guilty" if the state met it's burden and proved guilt beyond a reasonably doubt or "not guilty" if the state did not. The difference between "not guilty" and "innocent" may seem like a trivial semantic one but it isn't. The state has to prove you did it - you do not have have to prove your innocence.
In the case of a hung jury there's no decision. You haven't been found "not guilty" and can be retried.
Problem with this scenario is that self defense cannot be used if he fired accidentally. You cannot accidentally defend yourself.
Your youtube link omits over a minute of the end of the recording. Go to the link Afrocubanfunkma posted for the full call.
When you corrected me the first time I said you were correct. Do I have to say it in every post?
After Zimmeran says he ran, there appears to be either heavier breathing or wind noise on the recording. The officer asks if he is following the person and he says yes. We don't know if he is in the car or out of the car at this point.
The officer then says "we don't need you to follow him". That is not an order, whether he's a cop or a dispatcher.
But at that point, the heavier breathing or wind noise goes away and there is still a conversation going on. Either Zimmerman doesn't breath heavy while he's running and talking or he isn't running after him at that time.
So the point you seem to be missing is that while Martin is running there is no evidence Zimmerman is running (chasing) at that time.
What I do know is at some time they both ended up in a backyard fighting and Zimmerman shot Martin. I don't know what happened between that time and the end of Zimmerman's call. Do you? I have an idea, but I don't know if I could prove it in court. And I don't know what Zimmerman said happened during that time.
nutdog said:
Does anyone other than Zimmerman say they were fighting? Just his word is not enough.
- Status
