Trayvon Martin Death Investigation

Facts in Evidence: 1) Trayvon Martin was minding his own business,had committed no crime,and was unarmed.

The killer,Zimmerman, was armed,disregarded Police instructions to stop following Martin and therefore was the provocateur.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Facts in Evidence: 1) Trayvon Martin was minding his own business,had committed no crime,and was unarmed.

The killer,Zimmerman, was armed,disregarded Police instructions to stop following Martin and therefore was the provocateur.

In the Martin case, it can be effectively argued that Zimmerman may have been the provocateur, but it has yet to be established whether or not he was the aggressor.

The killer on the witness stand:Prosecutor asks "Why did you continue to follow the victim after the police dispatcher told you not to"?

Quote :

I find it preferable to wait for the trial to see where the truth lies rather than to watch you make shit up.

I guarantee you Zimmerman will be asked that exact question.

Get your checkbook out,happy
Trayvon Martin Update: Defense fund for George Zimmerman almost empty less than 2 weeks before trial, attorneys say

Quote :

CBS/AP) ORLANDO, Fla. - George Zimmerman's defense fund is almost depleted with less than two weeks until the former neighborhood watch leader goes on trial in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin.

Zimmerman's attorneys posted on their website Wednesday that the fund had less than $5,000 left. The fund had almost $315,000 in January.

The attorneys say they calculate that Zimmerman needs another $120,000 to put on a good defense or even another $75,000 to give him a fighting chance.

Attorneys Mark O'Mara and Don West say they haven't been paid a cent and many interns are working on the case without pay.

They say they will need the money in the coming weeks to pay experts and for transcripts of depositions.

Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder. He is pleading not guilty.

How do you spend $310,000 in less than 4 months without paying any experts or getting transcripts?

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

The killer on the witness stand:Prosecutor asks "Why did you continue to follow the victim after the police dispatcher told you not to"?

Quote :

I find it preferable to wait for the trial to see where the truth lies rather than to watch you make shit up.

I guarantee you Zimmerman will be asked that exact question.

First of all, there is no way of knowing at this time whether he will even take the stand, so you cannot "guarantee" jack shit.

George Zimmerman ‘ready and willing to testify’ in his own defense

Quote :

But if he does take the stand and is asked that exact question, and if he answers it, how do you suppose that will determine with any certainty who the aggressor was?

Disregarding the police dispatcher's instruction to stop following him and wait for the police is in its self an act of aggression. It shows a lack of respect for a trained professional law enforcement officer's judgment and also shows irresponsible behavior on Zimmerman's part.

Did you write that check yet?

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Disregarding the police dispatcher's instruction to stop following him and wait for the police is in its self an act of aggression. It shows a lack of respect for a trained professional law enforcement officer's judgment and also shows irresponsible behavior on Zimmerman's part.

[b]No, it is not.
It is not even close to an act of aggression.

What do you call disobeying authority? A kiss on the cheek?

Quote :

It is, at most, an act of disobedience to a person who has no authority over him in the first place anyway.
While I can’t swear to it in this case, most police dispatchers are not “trained professional law enforcement officer(s)”. They are exactly what they are – dispatchers – people who answer phones and tell actual “trained professional law enforcement officer(s)” where they are needed.
I am not attempting to minimize their importance, but the vast majority of them are not “trained professional law enforcement officer(s)”.
So stop making shit up.
'kay?

They are professionals trained in handling emergency situations. Apparently the killer thought that he knew better and chose not to follow their instructions. Can't wait to hear his answer to that question.

Stand Your Ground: Jeffco woman who fatally shot man while walking dog won't be charged

Quote :

A Jefferson County woman who fatally shot a man while she was walking her dog in the early-morning hours will not face criminal charges, authorities said today.

The shooting happened about 12:15 a.m. on May 7. Demetrius Antuan Thompson, 21, was killed in the shooting. He was the stepson of the woman's boyfriend.

The woman, whose name hasn't been released, told Jefferson County sheriff's deputies she went outside to walk her dog and saw someone run by her home. Apprehensive because her boyfriend had been robbed recently, the woman went back inside and got her gun.

A man, later identified as Thompson, started coming toward her. She said she warned him that she was armed and to stop.

Thompson continued to approach her, authorities said, and she fired the gun. Thompson went to the end of the driveway and collapsed faced down. He was pronounced dead on the scene.

Like I said before, these Stand Your Ground laws make it so easy to murder someone. Murder someone with no witnesses, and just say you were scared. Case closed.

Quote :

"This is a tragic situation,'' Falls said, "but legally she was justified."

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Disregarding the police dispatcher's instruction to stop following him and wait for the police is in its self an act of aggression. It shows a lack of respect for a trained professional law enforcement officer's judgment and also shows irresponsible behavior on Zimmerman's part.

[b]No, it is not.
It is not even close to an act of aggression.

What do you call disobeying authority? A kiss on the cheek?

Quote :

It is, at most, an act of disobedience to a person who has no authority over him in the first place anyway.
While I can’t swear to it in this case, most police dispatchers are not “trained professional law enforcement officer(s)”. They are exactly what they are – dispatchers – people who answer phones and tell actual “trained professional law enforcement officer(s)” where they are needed.
I am not attempting to minimize their importance, but the vast majority of them are not “trained professional law enforcement officer(s)”.
So stop making shit up.
'kay?

They are professionals trained in handling emergency situations. Apparently the killer thought that he knew better and chose not to follow their instructions. Can't wait to hear his answer to that question.

Disobeying authority is exactly what it is - disobeying authority. And in this case, it is not even a matter of disobeying authority, inasmuch as a dispatcher has no authority to begin with. It is in no way, shape, or form an "act of aggression", no matter how you try to spin it.

Deliberately following someone who is minding their own business and has not committed any crime is definitely a form of aggression.

Quote :

I suppose you feel that you can win any argument so long as you are allowed to re-define words and distort their meanings. But that is not allowed here.

Ok,how about you define the following behavior for us? "Deliberately following someone who is minding their own business and has not committed any crime".

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Ok,how about you define the following behavior for us? "Deliberately following someone who is minding their own business and has not committed any crime".

[b]Gladly.
I define such behavior as "deliberately following someone who is minding their own business and has not committed any crime".
Because that is what it is - no more, no less.
It is not even close to an act of aggression.

You're dead wrong. That behavior can be defined easily as aggressive. Passive behavior would be demonstrated if the killer just called the police and waited for them.

Quote :

Once again, stop making shit up

Just once get your head out of the bubble!

My scenarios are based on the actual 911 call where you can hear the killer admit that he was following the victim and hear his subsequent attempt to catch his breath.

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Ok,how about you define the following behavior for us? "Deliberately following someone who is minding their own business and has not committed any crime".

[b]Gladly.
I define such behavior as "deliberately following someone who is minding their own business and has not committed any crime".
Because that is what it is - no more, no less.
It is not even close to an act of aggression.

You're dead wrong. That behavior can be defined easily as aggressive. Passive behavior would be demonstrated if the killer just called the police and waited for them.

Quote :

Once again, stop making shit up

Just once get your head out of the bubble!

My scenarios are based on the actual 911 call where you can hear the killer admit that he was following the victim and hear his subsequent attempt to catch his breath.

Once again - walking behind someone is not an act of aggression.
And the outcome of the trial will not hinge upon who was breathing heavily - it will hinge upon who initiated the violence.

happy jack wrote:

it will hinge upon who initiated the violence.

Does it? My article above demonstrates the exact opposite. Why can't Trayvon be justified in "standing his ground" against a man following him at night, in the rain, and against police recommendations?

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

My scenarios are based on the actual 911 call where you can hear the killer admit that he was following the victim and hear his subsequent attempt to catch his breath.

Once again - walking behind someone is not an act of aggression.
And the outcome of the trial will not hinge upon who was breathing heavily - it will hinge upon who initiated the violence.

The facts in evidence show that Zimmerman wrongly profiled him and then got out of his truck to follow him which is an aggressive act. A passive act would be Zimmerman staying in his truck until police arrived.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

The facts in evidence show that Zimmerman wrongly profiled him and then got out of his truck to follow him which is an aggressive act. A passive act would be Zimmerman staying in his truck until police arrived.

[b]Following someone who appeared suspicious, as Zimmerman claimed Martin did, is only an act of aggression if you are allowed to re-define the word 'aggression', which you are not.

Please explain how he appeared "suspicious".

Quote :

And Zimmerman did not "wrongly" profile Martin. There is absolutely no law stating that a civilian is not allowed to profile another person, hence, there is no right or wrong involved concerning the dubious allegation that Martin was profiled, if indeed he was.

There is absolutely no doubt he was profiled. In the 911 call Zimmerman is plainly heard saying "These assholes always get away". Perhaps you would also like to explain what he meant by that.

Bottom line is that Martin had committed no crime and was simply walking home from a convenience store. He was profiled and stalked by an overzealous wannabe cop who was majoring in criminal justice at a community college and whose
Grade Point Average was a whopping .5 at one time.

happy jack wrote:

No, your article does not demonstrate the exact opposite.

It does. As I've stated before, the only apparent requirement for a "stand your ground" defense is being scared. Shoot first; ask questions later. Violence is not a requirement.

This is why the "he hit first" is a problem for a stand your ground defense in this case, as clearly Martin is just as entitled to it as Zimmerman is. The only difference being that Martin didn't have a gun, and fists are far less lethal than a firearm.

Heretic wrote:

This is why the "he hit first" is a problem for a stand your ground defense in this case, as clearly Martin is just as entitled to it as Zimmerman is.

I don’t recall ever saying that Martin was not entitled to the stand your ground defense.
Did I?

happy jack wrote:

I don’t recall ever saying that Martin was not entitled to the stand your ground defense.
Did I?

Not explicitly. But you seem convinced that Martin initiating the violence exonerates Zimmerman. I'm not sure how that's possible unless Martin wan't entitled to it.