Another Shooting

[tZer]

He didn't. He made himself look more suspicious and put himself in a LESS public place - meaning that there would be LESS witnesses to a crime committed against him.

No - Zimmerman thought he looked suspicious. Treyvon thought a predator was trying to hurt him. Zimmerman was dead wrong, Treyvon was absolutely right.

As for putting himself in a "less public place" - man... he was trying to get HOME. He almost made it. He thought his life was in danger - he was right. He did what anyone would do - he ran to try to get away from this crazy guy with a gun.

Made himself look more suspicious... really? Are you really trying to make it look as if Treyvon, running for his life, is responsible for his own murder because he ran for his life? That's pretty twisted.

I think he would've aroused even more attention by calling 911, and knocking on the nearest door and asking for help.

OK - you think someone is going to try to harm you - and you recommend slowing down, calmly dialing 911, and hoping that that weirdo is going to just sit there and let you... Wow...

It sounds very much to me like you really don't have much real world experience with feeling threatened or in danger.

You're assuming that isn't going to be the outcome anyway. I'm not so sure of that myself.

What I am assuming is what we know - that Treyvon, innocently walking home from the 7-11, was accosted by 'some guy' (NOT A COP or even a 'gated community security guard') a stranger in a car - understandably got scared and ran.

Everything you are saying says to me that you think Treyvon somehow brought it on himself. Are you?

The fact that you made a bad choice (NOT fighting the violation of your rights and apparently letting the cops get away with illegally arresting you - not the fact that you ran) and payed a penalty doesn't mean the fact that you ran was the bad idea. You didn't run fast enough, apparently - but regardless, if the way you describe what happened is what happened, you let them get away with it. You abdicated your right to defend your own innocence. There really not much more to say about all that.

As for the rest of what you think Treyvon should have done - like walk up to a neighbor's door... Holy cow...

Brilliant...

 

[Phil Smith]

Right... because cops NEVER chase down anyone that runs from them who is white, Asian, or Native American...

Look - if you run from a cop (marked or unmarked) it's considered suspicious. I don't care what color you are.

Zimmerman isn't a cop...did I mention that Zimmerman is not a cop?

 

[JAUQO III-X]

Look - if you run from a cop (marked or unmarked) it's considered suspicious. I don't care what color you are.

It's not, when it is proven later that that unmarked cop didn't acknowledge that they were a cop.

I use to work with dirty cops for a living and they would pull all kinds of bs on people. And the dirty cops of today are no different.

I remember when a white dirty cop stop a young black male who had no criminal history at all. He had just started college and was as square as a box. This white detective stopped this young man and accused him of being a drug dealer. When the young man didn't find any drugs on him he put some on him. I found out about this and I had the cop checked and he didn't show up in court and the case was thrown out. The young man finished college and went on and became a productive citizen in a rainbow society.

I'm sharing that story to show that the cop for what ever reason could have destroyed a young black mans life simply because he just could not believe that the young man was not what he thought or wanted him to be.

And for the record black cops do it to black citizens as well.

 

[tZer]

Umm... no.

An undercover cop - or anyone else - can follow you around. No matter how creepy they may seem, unless you have PPO they aren't breaking any law at all.

It does if you are at all pragmatic.

The penalty (250 word essay, plus 6 months probation that would be expunged from the record after it was served) seemed a whole lot better than trying to talk my just above the poverty line father into hiring thousands of dollars worth of lawyers.

You have no civil right for the cops not to follow you around.

Umm... did you miss where I've repeatedly said it was expunged from the record?

No one is saying to give the stranger the benefit of the doubt - I'm saying put yourself in the situation least likely to end badly. Notify police. Put yourself in a highly visible PUBLIC place., etc.

You are a master of conveniently omitting details.

Your record was expunged - after how long? Immediately upon penning an essay of 250 words? So - you sat right there, wrote and it all went away - or did it all go away after 6 months and on the condition of no further infractions?

Seeing as apparently these cops manufactured the initial infraction, what was to stop them from manufacturing another one at the 5 month mark?

Pragmatism is only as good as it's efficacy. Should you have unfortunately found yourself in some sort of real violation of your probation, all of this pragmatism go right out the window and it's too late them to ask for a do-over. But if you are OK with gambling with your own rights, who am I to say otherwise?

Further, following is one thing, accosting, giving chance and ultimately apprehending implies much more than just following and it does require that they identify themselves. So... Fill in the blanks, please...

 

[aborgman]

No - Zimmerman thought he looked suspicious. Treyvon thought a predator was trying to hurt him. Zimmerman was dead wrong, Treyvon was absolutely right.

As for putting himself in a "less public place" - man... he was trying to get HOME. He almost made it. He thought his life was in danger - he was right. He did what anyone would do - he ran to try to get away from this crazy guy with a gun.

He ran away before any gun was evident.

Made himself look more suspicious... really? Are you really trying to make it look as if Treyvon, running for his life, is responsible for his own murder because he ran for his life? That's pretty twisted.

Martin absolutely is not responsible.

That doesn't mean there aren't actions he could have taken which would have lessened his likelihood of being a victim.

OK - you think someone is going to try to harm you - and you recommend slowing down

No - just not speeding up and running through private property between residences.

, calmly dialing 911, and hoping that that weirdo is going to just sit there and let you... Wow...

No need to be calm - and don't assume he is going to let you. Get to a PUBLIC place, with OTHER people. You know - IN PUBLIC.

What I am assuming is what we know - that Treyvon, innocently walking home from the 7-11

Indeterminate.

, was accosted by 'some guy' (NOT A COP or even a 'gated community security guard') a stranger in a car - understandably got scared and ran.

Followed != accosted.

My reading of the evidence is that Trayvon ran before there was any contact (verbal or physical) at all.

Everything you are saying says to me that you think Treyvon somehow brought it on himself. Are you?

Absolutely not.

Just like the girl who walks through a bad neighborhood dressed attractively didn't bring rape on herself - but that doesn't mean her actions were the best choice from a pragmatic point of view.

The fact that you made a bad choice (NOT fighting the violation of your rights and apparently letting the cops get away with illegally arresting you - not the fact that you ran) and payed a penalty doesn't mean the fact that you ran was the bad idea.

No rights were violated.

You have no civil right to walk the streets without someone following you. None at all.

 

[aborgman]

It's not, when it is proven later that that unmarked cop didn't acknowledge that they were a cop.

The law has no exception for cops that don't identify themselves.

 

[tZer]

OK, aborgman - we clearly don't agree. I am not going to continue to battle with you about this. I appreciate your point of view even if I don't agree with it.

 

[Sav'nBass]

Some of the posts in thuis thread are just so....

:scowl:


WHO LET THE DOGS OUT!!!

(yelp.. yelp, yelp yelp...)

 

[aborgman]

You are a master of conveniently omitting details.

Your record was expunged - after how long? Immediately upon penning an essay of 250 words? So - you sat right there, wrote and it all went away - or did it all go away after 6 months and on the condition of no further infractions?

After successful completion of the essay as well as completing probation with no further infractions.

Seeing as apparently these cops manufactured the initial infraction,

No, they didn't.

Running from an unmarked cop car across private property WAS a technical infraction of the city code on prowling. I was guilty. If I hadn't run from the cop there would have been no infraction.

what was to stop them from manufacturing another one at the 5 month mark?

Absolutely nothing - and considering the ongoing problems I had with that police department, it really wouldn't have surprised me. Over the three years I lived in that town after my arrest I was probably questioned by the police 20-30 times about various crimes.

Pragmatism is only as good as it's efficacy. Should you have unfortunately found yourself in some sort of real violation of your probation, all of this pragmatism go right out the window and it's too late them to ask for a do-over. But if you are OK with gambling with your own rights, who am I to say otherwise?

What rights? I BROKE THE LAW AS IT IS WRITTEN.

Further, following is one thing, accosting, giving chance and ultimately apprehending implies much more than just following and it does require that they identify themselves. So... Fill in the blanks, please...

1) Unmarked car creeping down the street about 100 yards behind me and a friend out walking late at night.

2) After about 30 seconds we decide to ditch through a yard.

3) Unmarked car comes screeching up to where we entered yards, climbs out, and starts following tracks with flashlight.

4) We run further into wooded area, and start picking our way home.

5) 3 miles and about 40 minutes of walking through yards and woods later we're almost to his house.

5) Crossing street to enter my friends yard and up pulls an unmarked Chevy Bronco

6) Out jumps Officer Friendly, 9mm drawn, screaming "Get up against the car and put your hands up"

7) Officer frisks my friend, slams his head into the side of the Bronco busting his eyebrow open, then cuffs him.

8) Officer frisks me, I hold my head tight to car to avoid getting my head smashed. I get cuffed.

9) We get a ride to the police station, get searched (they though my rockstop for my bass drug paraphenalia), then get to call home - all while still handcuffed.

10) We also get told (by the angry officer) that they had 2 unmarked cars, 2 city cop cars, a county cop car, and a state police car looking for us after we ran.

11) I get a summons to appear before a magistrate, along with a police report. My friend with the busted head never hears from the cops again, and his name is redacted from the police report.

12) I visit magistrate, he tells me my choice are "take the essay and probation, or fight it and lose" - I take the essay.

 

[tZer]

After successful completion of the essay as well as completing probation with no further infractions.



No, they didn't.

Running from an unmarked cop car across private property WAS a technical infraction of the city code on prowling. I was guilty. If I hadn't run from the cop there would have been no infraction.




Absolutely nothing - and considering the ongoing problems I had with that police department, it really wouldn't have surprised me. Over the three years I lived in that town after my arrest I was probably questioned by the police 20-30 times about various crimes.



What rights? I BROKE THE LAW AS IT IS WRITTEN.




1) Unmarked car creeping down the street about 100 yards behind me and a friend out walking late at night.

2) After about 30 seconds we decide to ditch through a yard.

3) Unmarked car comes screeching up to where we entered yards, climbs out, and starts following tracks with flashlight.

4) We run further into wooded area, and start picking our way home.

5) 3 miles and about 40 minutes of walking through yards and woods later we're almost to his house.

5) Crossing street to enter my friends yard and up pulls an unmarked Chevy Bronco

6) Out jumps Officer Friendly, 9mm drawn, screaming "Get up against the car and put your hands up"

7) Officer frisks my friend, slams his head into the side of the Bronco busting his eyebrow open, then cuffs him.

8) Officer frisks me, I hold my head tight to car to avoid getting my head smashed. I get cuffed.

9) We get a ride to the police station, get searched (they though my rockstop for my bass drug paraphenalia), then get to call home - all while still handcuffed.

10) We also get told (by the angry officer) that they had 2 unmarked cars, 2 city cop cars, a county cop car, and a state police car looking for us after we ran.

11) I get a summons to appear before a magistrate, along with a police report. My friend with the busted head never hears from the cops again, and his name is redacted from the police report.

12) I visit magistrate, he tells me my choice are "take the essay and probation, or fight it and lose" - I take the essay.

Sounds like a cruddy situation. It also sounds like you let them intimidate you into not fighting it. It also sounds like you ran for very legitimate reasons that, had you simply pushed back via a lawyer, would have gotten it all tossed out. The fact that they overreacted was on them.

You are all to willing to let all of what happened to you be OK, IMO - and IME.

Based on your description, you abdicated your right to be cleared. You let them, the people who caused you to do what you did, get away with it. You would not have run across that yard had they not been dogging you. IF you didn't do anything else illegal that night, the fact that you ran because you were afraid of the car that was following you is so easily justified that I find it all but impossible to believe that there wasn't more to this story.

Why did you run? Because you were scared, I assume - and for very legitimate reasons - unmarked cars following kids at night is f'in scary, man! Again, it's exactly what we teach our kids to watch out for.

The fact that you are willing to forget that and accept the label of 'criminal' or 'prowler' because it's pragmatic, is silly, IMO.

I know you believe you deserved what you got - based on what you've said here, I don't agree. I think you got screwed. I know you can see how they connected the dots to turn you into a law-breaker instead of what you were, a scared kid doing what any scared kid would and should do when they are afraid. You may not have done it perfectly - but you didn't do anyone any harm and the worst thing that happened was a couple cops had to do their job.

It sounds much more to me like a vindictive punishment designed to mask the fact that they screwed up and scared the daylights out of a couple kids. I still cannot see how your experience equates to teaching kids that it's better to stay in harm's way than to try to get away from someone you believe to be out to hurt you.

 

[Dr. Cheese]

Apparently Zimmerman has some sort domestic violence incident on his record too. I could not get all of the details, but it is another hole in Sanford PD declaring Zimmerman to have a clean record immediately after the shooting.

 

[aborgman]

Sounds like a cruddy situation. It also sounds like you let them intimidate you into not fighting it. It also sounds like you ran for very legitimate reasons that, had you simply pushed back via a lawyer, would have gotten it all tossed out. The fact that they overreacted was on them.

Sorry, but that just isn't how the law is written.

Loitering laws (which generally fall in the same part of the code) are also very similar, as are vagrancy laws... and as the law is written, it's quite likely I was guilty under the letter of the law.

Now, you want to argue that the law is potentially an issue and that it might be thrown out if you pushed a case to the State Supreme Court - I wouldn't necessarily disagree.

Based on your description, you abdicated your right to be cleared.

No - I abdicated my CHANCE to be cleared, because the cost and potential penalties involved in pushing the case (should I have lost) were significantly higher.

A loss could have ended with lawyers fees + 90 days in jail + $2,500 fine worst case.

You let them, the people who caused you to do what you did, get away with it.

They didn't cause me to run.

I CHOSE to run. It was the wrong choice.

You would not have run across that yard had they not been dogging you. IF you didn't do anything else illegal that night, the fact that you ran because you were afraid of the car that was following you is so easily justified that I find it all but impossible to believe that there wasn't more to this story.

We weren't doing anything illegal other tan "prowling". We almost certainly were suspicious though - teenagers wandering the streets at night generally are.

Why did you run? Because you were scared, I assume - and for very legitimate reasons - unmarked cars following kids at night is f'in scary, man! Again, it's exactly what we teach our kids to watch out for.

I'd say "creeped out" more than scared - but yes, it is definitely not a comfortable situation.

The fact that you are willing to forget that and accept the label of 'criminal' or 'prowler' because it's pragmatic, is silly, IMO.

Well - I'm willing to accept the label of prowler because according the the city code I was guilty of prowling.

I know you believe you deserved what you got - based on what you've said here, I don't agree. I think you got screwed. I know you can see how they connected the dots to turn you into a law-breaker instead of what you were, a scared kid doing what any scared kid would and should do when they are afraid. You may not have done it perfectly - but you didn't do anyone any harm and the worst thing that happened was a couple cops had to do their job.

Deserved? I don't know about that.

Was guilty under the law in place? Yeah, I think I was.

It sounds much more to me like a vindictive punishment designed to mask the fact that they screwed up and scared the daylights out of a couple kids.

Quite possibly... but those couple of kids broke the letter of the law.

I'm not saying it's a good, ethical, or logical law - I'm saying it's the law, and I broke it.

Look at how vagrancy laws have been used in the past against the homeless, hitchhikers, and hippies...

I still cannot see how your experience equates to teaching kids that it's better to stay in harm's way than to try to get away from someone you believe to be out to hurt you.

I'm not saying "stay in harms way" - I'm saying there are much better ways to remove yourself from harms way (or at least minimize the likelihood of harm) than running away through non-public areas.

 

[nutdog]

Interesting things on the Sanford Fl website, including an FAQ sheet from police chief:

Invalid Link Removed

Didn't answer some of my questions.

It'll be interesting to see what comes of the phone records. So far I'm only seeing what the lawyers say. They also claim two gunshots, but that doesn't seem to be the case, so I'm not sure how trustworthy they are.

But if the cops have Martin's cell phone and he was on the phone with his girlfriend at the time and they didn't check that out then that's gross incompetence and/or negligence.

The time between the death and the father notification is incredible. I can't see how that could happen.

 

[guroove]

Somebody needs to shoot and kill Zimmerman in self defense.

 

[Steve]

Somebody needs to shoot and kill Zimmerman in self defense.

You know, actually, as sick as that concept is, given the current state of things...if he goes out on patrol tonight and some armed citizen shoots him on the spot, he would have a far more credible case of self defense than Zimmerman.

 

[Phil Smith]

The time between the death and the father notification is incredible. I can't see how that could happen.

It's really clear why that happened, it begins with the call to the police about a suspicious person and everything after that is a direct result of the apparent racial bias of Zimmerman and the police department. Zimmerman doesn't know Martin, so he must be a burglar or there's something wrong with him, or you fill in the blank. The police view the victim as just another potential burglar that can no longer be a potential burglar. They write him off as a John Doe potential burglar, because Martin allegedly doesn't have any ID on him(he could have had ID with a different address that they did not mention). As far as they are concerned case closed. The missing persons filed by the parent can be handled by one part of the police department without another knowing about it, well that's usually how it works in the movies.

 

[Phil Smith]

You know, actually, as sick as that concept is, given the current state of things...if he goes out on patrol tonight and some armed citizen shoots him on the spot, he would have a far more credible case of self defense than Zimmerman.

Patrol??? Zimmerman is in hiding, he packed his stuff up in a UHaul.

 

[guroove]

You know, actually, as sick as that concept is, given the current state of things...if he goes out on patrol tonight and some armed citizen shoots him on the spot, he would have a far more credible case of self defense than Zimmerman.

I actually felt bad right after I posted my previous post, because I don't think vigilante justice should be fought with vigilante justice. It's just indicative of the state of things, and how inherently stupid the "stand your ground" law is. It's like the wild west all over again. Any crazy dirty harry wanna-be can go around and be judge, jury, and executioner.

 

[guroove]

Patrol??? Zimmerman is in hiding, he packed his stuff up in a UHaul.

Yeah, I'd be surprised if they can ever find this guy again. He's gotten away with murder, and I wouldn't be surprised if he is on the lam.

 

[tZer]

Is Zimmerman really AWOL?