Neighborhood watch captain shoots innocent black youth and doesn't even get arrested

[Bump]

This is some ****ED UP SHIT, they aren't sure if the racist neighborhood watch idiot should be arrested? If anything, local gangs might take notice of this and start shooting up that neighborhood or just random white neighborhoods. I could never live in the south, it's ridiculous. The guy shoots an innocent teen walking to the store to buy skittles. Should be life in prison, that's cold blood man.

http://news.yahoo.com/family-florida...044537742.html




ORLANDO, Florida (Reuters) - The family of a 17-year-old African-American boy shot to death last month in his gated Florida community by a white Neighborhood Watch captain wants to see the captain arrested, the family's lawyer said on Wednesday.

Trayvon Martin was shot dead after he took a break from watching NBA All-Star game television coverage to walk 10 minutes to a convenience store to buy snacks including Skittles candy requested by his 13-year-old brother, Chad, the family's lawyer Ben Crump said.

"He was a good kid," Crump said in an interview, adding that the family would issue a call for the Watch captain's arrest at a news conference on Thursday. "On his way home, a Neighborhood Watch loose cannon shot and killed him."

[Related: Fla. teen avoids deportation]

Trayvon, who lived in Miami with his mother, had been visiting his father and stepmother in a gated townhome community called The Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford, 20 miles north of Orlando.

As Trayvon returned to the townhome, Sanford police received a 911 call reporting a suspicious person.

Although names are blacked out on the police report, Crump and media reports at the time of the shooting identified the caller as George Zimmerman who is listed in the community's newsletter as the Neighborhood Watch captain.

Without waiting for police to arrive, Crump said, Zimmerman confronted Trayvon, who was on the sidewalk near his home. By the time police got there, Trayvon was dead of a single gunshot to the chest.

"What do the police find in his pocket? Skittles," Crump said. "A can of Arizona ice tea in his jacket pocket and Skittles in his front pocket for his brother Chad."

Zimmerman could not be reached for comment on Wednesday evening at a phone number listed for him on the community's newsletter.

Crump said the family was concerned that police might decide to consider the shooting as self defense, and that police have ignored the family's request for a copy of the original 911 call, which they think will shed light on the incidents.

"If the 911 protocol across the country held to form here, they told him not to get involved. He disobeyed that order," said Ryan Julison, a spokesman for the family.

"He (Zimmerman) didn't have to get out of his car," said Crump, who has prepared a public records lawsuit to file on Thursday if the family doesn't get the 911 tape. "If he never gets out of his car, there is no reason for self-defense. Trayvon only has skittles. He has the gun."

Since Trayvon, a high school junior who wanted to be a pilot, was black and Zimmerman is white, Crump said race is "the 600 pound elephant in the room."

"Why is this kid suspicious in the first place? I think a stereotype must have been placed on the kid," Crump said.

(Editing By Cynthia Johnston and Peter Bohan)

[Bowser]

Stone cold killa

[BryanBusby]

Well shit okay, looks like enough reason for me to shoot him dead! HURR

[kstater]

I bet the darts he plays with are sharp.

[WilliamInnerCircle]

If he hadn't pummeled Zimmerman with his fists, he'd have killed him with gang signs...

[Pawnmower]

It will either be true or not......(Martin belonging to a gang or not)....And it will either have an effect on the outcome or it won't.

My guess is that it would be easier to win a guilty verdict of a harsher crime if it turns out that Trayvon is an angel and not a little punk. Regardless of any other facts in the case, I think it will be easier to believe Zimmerman's version of the story if it turns out Trayvon was in trouble with school, sold drugs, and had gang involvement.

Maybe it will have zero effect or won't even be admissible though.

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

It will either be true or not......(Martin belonging to a gang or not)....And it will either have an effect on the outcome or it won't.

My guess is that it would be easier to win a guilty verdict or a harsher crime if it turns out that Trayvon is an angel and not a little punk. Regardless of any other facts in the case, I think it will be easier to believe Zimmerman's version of the story if it turns out Trayvon was in trouble with school, sold drugs, and had gang involvement.

Maybe it will have zero affect or won't even be admissible though.

If only he had a rap sheet to go along with those scary pictures!

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by Bowser

If only he had a rap sheet to go along with those scary pictures!

a 10 day suspension is probably received by less than 1% of students I am guessing. That already puts him at being in the 99th percentile of trouble makers at school...and that is the only thing we know about. The rest will come April 10th.

I don't think this will help his case.

[whoman69]

Originally Posted by go bowe

you sir, are obviously too stupid to know that the stand your ground law only applies if you have a gun...

standing your ground with a punch to the nose is not justifiable...

No it doesn't you stupid ****. In fact it doesn't even mention guns.

2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[14]

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

a 10 day suspension is probably received by less than 1% of students I am guessing. That already puts him at being in the 99th percentile of trouble makers at school...and that is the only thing we know about. The rest will come April 10th.

I don't think this will help his case.

GOOD THING HE GOT CAPPED OR ELSE HE'D BEEN RAPIN ERRYBODY UP IN THERE

[KChiefer]

"When your cable goes out, you masturbate.
When you masturbate, you see you have a small penis.
When you see you have a small penis, you fear "baby-armed" black youths.
When you fear "baby-armed" black youths, you arm yourself with a gun.
When you arm yourself with a gun, you think it's alright to harass unarmed black youths.
When you think it's alright to harass unarmed black youths, you get your ass kicked by unarmed black youths.
When you get your ass kicked by unarmed black youths, you shoot unarmed black youths.
Don't shoot unarmed black youths. Order Direc...order a penis pump."

[VAChief]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

It will either be true or not......(Martin belonging to a gang or not)....And it will either have an effect on the outcome or it won't.

My guess is that it would be easier to win a guilty verdict of a harsher crime if it turns out that Trayvon is an angel and not a little punk. Regardless of any other facts in the case, I think it will be easier to believe Zimmerman's version of the story if it turns out Trayvon was in trouble with school, sold drugs, and had gang involvement.

Maybe it will have zero effect or won't even be admissible though.

It shouldn't have any more effect than Zimmerman assaulting a cop. He chased an innocent kid down unnecessarily and shot him dead. That should be enough for a conviction of some degree. Even if he was fleeing the scene of a crime, stand your ground would not apply. The guy who wrote the law has said the same.

[BryanBusby]

Originally Posted by whoman69

No it doesn't you stupid ****. In fact it doesn't even mention guns.

I think that was a sarcastic post.

I like how we're now pretending suspensions are hard to get in the days of 0 tolerance policies. You can get that long of a suspension by taking asprin to school.

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by Bowser

GOOD THING HE GOT CAPPED OR ELSE HE'D BEEN RAPIN ERRYBODY UP IN THERE

NO IT WAS JUST AN ACCIDENT

IT WAS ACCIDENT HE WAS THUGGED OUT IN THOSE PICTURES
IT WAS ACCIDENT HE WAS SUSPENDED FOR 10 DAYD FROM SCHOOL
IT WAS ACCIDENT HE GOT SENT TO LIVE WITH HIS DAD A FEW DAYS EARLIER
IT WAS ACCIDENT PEOPLE TALK ABOUT HIS FIGHTS ON FACEBOOK
IT WAS ACCIDENT HE WAS OUT IN MIDDLE OF NIGHT CUZ NEEDED SKITTLES
IT WAS ACCIDENT HE WAS WEARING A PULLED UP HOODIE IN WARM WEATHER
IT WAS ACCIDENT HE PUNCHED SOMEONE IN THE FACE WHO ASKED HIM WHAT HE WAS DOING
IT WAS ACCIDENT HE WAS 6 FOOT 3 ATHLETIC AND ZIMMERMAN IS 5'9" FAT
IT WAS ACCIDENT HE DIDNT RUN AWAY FROM FAT MEXICAN GUY
IT WAS ACCIDENT HE TACKLED HIM AND SMASHED HIS HEAD IN GROUND

WHOLE THING IS JUST BAD ACCIDENT


(two can play your dumb game)

[BryanBusby]

seriously pawnmower, just stop posting already.

[VAChief]

Originally Posted by whoman69

No it doesn't you stupid ****. In fact it doesn't even mention guns.

2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[14]

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Do you think that it is reasonable to see Zimmerman as the aggressor? Someone starts following you on your way home, you get in his grill and wonder what his problem is, a fight ensues and the dude pulls a piece and shoots you...that is self defense? Sounds more like a pussy got his ass kicked over something he was told he shouldn't be involved with and panicked. If he hadn't been carrying you think Urkel would have killed him?