“The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement, or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each party’s concern.” That’s the conclusion of the Sanford Police Department’s report after George Zimmerman shot Florida teen Trayvon Martin, according to usatoday.com.”There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter.” Yes but—

Among the evidence was an audio interview of Zimmerman’s father, Robert, in the Seminole state attorney’s office March 19. The father, under oath, says the person crying for help on the 911 tape is “absolutely, positively George Zimmerman.”

“That was George and he was not just yelling, he sounded like he was screaming for his life,” the elder Zimmerman said.

Serino said that on Feb. 28, he played the 911 tapes for Tracy Martin, Trayvon’s father.

“I asked Mr. Martin if the voice calling for help was that of his son. Mr. Martin, clearly emotionally impacted by the recording, quietly responded ‘no.’ “

Also, FWIW, Martin’s autopsy report revealed that he had THC in his system at the time of his death.

Now, why the hell doesn’t the Florida State Attorney’s Office pdf tonight’s document release (“A large cache of reports, documents, photos and other descriptions of evidence in the case”) and put them on line? Why hasn’t USA Today or the AP or any of the other mainstream media outlets rushing to “print” on this done the same?

TTAG will link ASAP. Meanwhile, there’s an interesting headline at ABC NewsCops, Witnesses Back Up George Zimmerman’s Version of Trayvon Martin Shooting. Click here for a miamiherald.com photo gallery of images from the freshly released evidence.

Recommended For You

110 Responses to Sanford Police Report: Martin Shooting Was “Avoidable”

  1. Sure, maybe Zimmerman felt “safe” to pursue because he had a gun and wasn’t breaking the law in doing either. If he had stayed back, of course it likely never would of happened. Then again, that’s not the issue. The issue is what Trayvon and GZ did once they came face to face. The cops shouldn’t say it was “avoidable” unless Zimmerman was breaking the law in some fashion that they can prove. Since they cannot, their comment is reckless, misleading and unprofessional.

    • You don’t think that being chased influenced Trayon’s actions? Do you really think that the only thing that matters is what happened once they were a couple feet a part? GZ caused this incident, regardless of who threw the first punch or who was on top. That is what that “reckless, misleading and unprofessional” statement is about.

      • He wasn’t chased. He was followed.

        He was asked what he was doing there.

        The appropriate response would be “I live right over there.”

        Knocking GZ down and punching him until his nose was broken, also known as assault, was avoidable.

        • I have a CCW and am pro second amendment. But i still think GZ could have descalated the situation. And he handled the situation improperly due to lack of police training. If anything, at the least he should get manslaughter for negligence.

          Noone has any idea the tone of voice GZ had or if he physically tried to detain Martin. All we have is his side of the story. And as old as you look in your pic, you know there is ALWAYS two sides to every story. You’ve been around long enough to understand that. Problem is, when the other side is deceased, you will only hear one side.

          Secondly, put yourself in Martin’s shoes. Someone with no markings on their vehicle is following you at 2mph, glaring you down immensly with an angry face. What would your instincts be? He had no markings on his vehicle, no badge, no uniform????? He did not identify himself???? In the psychology of this situation, i would have been ready to defend myself in martin’s shoes. I would have had my hand ready to draw if i had my gun on me.

          Also, zimmerman may not have been breaking the law by acting like neighborhood security (not neighborhood watch), but he is not protected under any law if he started the altercation. And if he is going to make accusations, he should have done it in a deescaltive manner, and not be blunt. I know i was royally pissed off one time when someone accused me of stealing when i didn’t. They were found to be wrong, i could have sued them.

        • Wow, Nee, there’s so much fail in that post that I don’t know where to start.

          First off, if Zimmerman had physically done anything to Martin, there would have been evidence of it such as bruises. None of that was found. It doesn’t matter if he yelled at Martin or not, that does NOT justify attempted murder on Martin’s part.

          If an unknown person comes towards you at night, what rational person goes to “Let’s charge them and assault them” instead of “Let’s get the hell out of here and away from them”? Given that you’ve stated that you would shoot someone just for calling out to you at night, you should NOT be carrying a gun. You’re the kind of person that MikeB fantasizes about – someone just looking for an excuse to pop a few rounds in a person.

          Again, even if your hypothetical situation were true, it still does not justify Martin assaulting Zimmerman. Zimmerman could have even flat out said “Stop, nigger!” and it STILL would not justify assault and attempted murder.

          All you’re doing is putting your own fantasies on the situation so you can get the adrenaline rush of shooting Zimmerman to feel tough because “He should know better than to ask ME a question!”

      • following someone is legal. beating someone to a pulp is neither legal nor justified due to being followed.

        • Nee’s point is valid. IF Travvon Martin had never heard of his neighborhood’s “neighborhood watch”. In all honesty, he had to be aware of that situation. When one attacks a man armed with a gun, what could possibly go wrong?

          Both parties were reckless, it would seem. But that doesn’t make the score 0-0.

    • It was very avoidable, that’s the truth.. They say that because as LEO they are trained to deescalate the situation and to do things in a manner where they don’t have to lock someone up over a misunderstanding.

      Also, saying he can do whatever he wants just because he isn’t breaking the law is dumb. You are basically saying i can give someone a really hard time at their job, be the customer from hell, follow them home from work, walk up to them, talk about how i slept with their mom, piss them off so they attack me, then shoot them in self defense and it’s ok?

      If Martin felt threatened, he had every right to defend himself. That’s basically what this case boils down to. Honestly i don’t think martin would have attacked GZ over a simple question. It had to be more deeply rooted than that.

      • Actually if they attacked you they would still be innthe wrong. Telling a person you banged their mom isn’t illegal assault is.

        • Punctuation and spaces are on special today. Did you know that? They’re FREE!!

      • Why are we even discussing LEO training? Zimmerman was not a LEO.

        Regardless of what was said (sticks and stones…) the evidence, or lack thereof, shows that GZ had not prompted a physical altercation.

        Totenglock is absolutely right, normal people don’t turn around and engage someone who is following them unless they are looking for a fight. If Trayvon wanted to get away and just go home, being over 6 feet and a football player, he could probably outrun GZ easily.

        Yes GZ should have stayed in the car.
        Yes TM should have beat feet home.

        Both made a bad decision and unfortunately one young life was lost. So far the story goes that TM engaged GZ as he was withdrawing from the area. Regardless of what was said or if GZ was or was not withdrawing at the point he came under assault he had every right to defend himself.

  2. Of course it was avoidable. All he had to do was stay with his truck, and when the cops decided to finally end their donut break and show up, another potential burgler would have been long gone. How many break-ins did they have in the area in the prior 6 mo.?

      • If only their parents had never had children, none of this would have happened!

        (To be clear, not snarking at you, Tom, just jumpin’ on your thought-train.)

    • Wait…..who was the potential burger? If he wouldnt have g ,otten out of the truck, or even dialed 911, there would been no break one, no deaths and we wouldn’t be wasting time on this IGOTD.

  3. let the law determine whether he is guilty or not. In the meantime, lets not put up a defense for anybody who may be guilty, it could backfire. Are we on his side or something? Lets sit on the wall and draw conclusion from the results. In the meantime, its none of our business to draw up evidence in court.

    • Also-just cause he was calling for help doesn’t point to any conclusions. for all we know, he could’ve done it on purpose for this exact effect.

    • Are we on his side or something?
      When all the evidence supports the eyewitness testimony that a punk kid tried to murder him to “keep it real”, yes, absolutely I’m on his side.

      let the law determine whether he is guilty or not.
      You’re horribly misinformed about how our “justice” system works if you think guilt has anything to do with convictions. I personally know someone who was the victim of a crime and the lazy ass detective is framing THEM for the crime and he’s not even trying to provide a single shred of proof – yet they were still arrested and are being prosecuted because Officer McDonuts couldn’t be bothered to do his damn job.

      • “When all the evidence supports the eyewitness testimony that a punk kid tried to murder him to “keep it real”, yes, absolutely I’m on his side”

        Obviously all the evidence does not support that, otherwise we wouldn’t even be debating it.

        For whatever reason you have your blinders on, but it may surprise you that you aren’t the world’s arbiter and other people have opinions just as valid as yours.

        The reason this case is picking up the column inches isn’t just because a white guy killed a black guy and the racial angle, it’s because it is very complex and has ambiguous, important details – there is more than enough grey to support both sides, and that engenders debate.

        The case does seem to bring out the nasty side in a lot of people though. All of a sudden they don’t think a man has the right to not be harassed as he goes about his business, or defend himself if approached at night by another man in a threatening manner. I have to assume that is because he’s black, as these same people talk with pride about how in similar situations they would have their hand on their piece, ready to go. The 3/5 of a man mindset seems to still be in full effect, sadly.

        • We’re only “debating” it because there are people like who who refuse to actually look at the evidence and keep going with the sensationalist media bullshit of “That evil half white / half hispanic man murdered a poor sweet black 11 year old for no reason!”. Each week more and more evidence comes out that shows that Zimmerman’s life was in danger and he shot him to keep from being murdered.

          For whatever reason you have your blinders on, but it may surprise you that you aren’t the world’s arbiter and other people have opinions just as valid as yours.
          Unlike you, I’m not stating an “opinion”. I’m reading the fact that have been released by officials and simple restating those fact. Just because the facts are devastating to your fantasy doesn’t make them any less true.

          The reason this case is picking up the column inches isn’t just because a white guy killed a black guy and the racial angle, it’s because it is very complex and has ambiguous, important details – there is more than enough grey to support both sides, and that engenders debate.
          It’s entirely because people like you lied and screamed that a black life (which is exponentially more valuable than any other race’s life) was lost, thus the actions of the black teen are irrelevant, because he’s black and superior to the lowly white / hispanic man who was protecting his life.

          All of a sudden they don’t think a man has the right to not be harassed as he goes about his business, or defend himself if approached at night by another man in a threatening manner.

          You have no evidence that he was harassed. Even if he was, someone yelling at you is NOT justification for attempted murder.

          I have to assume that is because he’s black, as these same people talk with pride about how in similar situations they would have their hand on their piece, ready to go. The 3/5 of a man mindset seems to still be in full effect, sadly.
          And you openly reveal your racist motives in this whole mess. Again, you refuse to look at the facts and only see a black person is dead and therefore, someone must pay for killing one of Obama’s sacred people.

        • Robert can you clarify the forum policy here please? Because right now it looks like race hate is perfectly fine, but daring to point out what a racist POS somebody is will not be tolerated and the post deleted.

          Is that really the community of “armed intelligentsia” that you’re trying to build here? It would be good to know just so everybody is on the same page. I mean I get that running a gun site means you rely to a certain degree on racist, right wing filth to support the place with page views, but still – surely some kind of line must be drawn?

        • @Commenter: You’re joking, right? Point out the “race hate” in anything Totenglocke said. I don’t see any hatred. I just see someone who is of the opinion that, but for the racial angle that has been fabricated by the MSM, this story would not be news.

        • Yeah because “Obama’s sacred people” surely isn’t a racially loaded statement at all, right?

          If you can’t see it then there’s no way I can explain it to you.

          Frankly I would have more respect for a lot of posters here if they just came out and said they were happy another nigger is dead, rather than pretending they have any interest in finding out the truth whatsoever.

          Zimmerman killed Treyvon because he was in fear of his life – I don’t think anybody disputes this now. That’s murder off the hook. But how did the altercation start? We still don’t know – either Treyvon went crazy and attacked unprovoked, or Zimmerman way overstepped his bounds and provoked the attack. The difference between those is whether he should walk free or do some time, and so far there is NOT definitive evidence either way available to the public.

        • Sorry, man, but Obama opened himself up for that kind of thing when he made the “son” remark.

        • I mean I get that running a gun site means you rely to a certain degree on racist, right wing filth
          Those are some quality arguments he has there….

          And Moonshine, you’re dead on. I was pointing out the racist attitude of people like Commenter when I made the “sacred people” comment, because they view a black life as more important than a non-black life.

          <citeFrankly I would have more respect for a lot of posters here if they just came out and said they were happy another nigger is dead, rather than pretending they have any interest in finding out the truth whatsoever.
          Yet more racist, crap. Are you ever going to use any facts in your “arguments”?

          The difference between those is whether he should walk free or do some time
          It doesn’t matter if Zimmerman was yelling racial slurs, there’s no physical evidence or eyewitness evidence that GZ touched TM at all before TM assaulted him. As has been stated many times, verbal insults are NOT a legal justification for assault, certainly not “bashing someone’s head into the pavement trying to kill them” assault.

  4. Real life threatening scratch he has there. I bet it required a whole butterfly bandage. At the very least he should have been charged with criminal negligence.

    • Sure. GZ should have taken a few more slams to the pavement, maybe a curb-stomp and a few more punches before he decided to protect himself. I guess if he was knocked unconscious in the meantime. . . sorry GZ.

    • Derp! The fact that a person has not yet sustained a life threatening injury does not mean he is not reasonably in fear of one. Also, I dare you to explain what you think negligence is.

    • Ever heard of a concussion? Permanent brain damage in many cases – extent varies – and you don’t even need to have visible trauma to sustain one.

      One hit of your skull against pavement could mean lights out for a short while (KO), long while (coma), or permanently. Not worth taking that chance. Once noggin meets ground you do whatever you can to stay alive.

    • I fully agree that he should have waited for much more serious wounds before reacting. If Zimmerman had been fatally beaten, THEN he would be right in reacting to the attack.

  5. First of all, just cause Zimmerman has a gun doesn’t mean he has a right to stop and question anyone walking in his neighborhood. It doesn’t make you a vigilante. Zimmerman maybe did the right thing by calling the police and reporting a suspicious person in his neighborhood, but he did the wrong thing by disobeying the dispatcher and personally trying to question Martin. Believe me, I’m all for carrying and self defense use, but this kid didn’t have to die, even Zimmerman knows it. Easily avoidable.

    Second, Martin wasn’t doing anything illegal. Maybe he smoked a joint or something, but big deal, thats about as far as illegal as he got. He simply went to the store to get some munchies. Had Zimmerman never tried to be the “hero” that he isn’t, Martin would have just gone home and eaten. Thats it.

    Third, don’t you always tell your kids not to talk to strangers? If some guy in a car tried talking to my son just for walking home from the convenience store, I would want him to do the same thing Martin did, RUN. Why is Zimmerman supposed to automatically be trusted by everyone walking the sidewalks at night? Wouldn’t you feel a bit uncomfortable if someone drove along side you and tried questioning you for doing no wrong at all?

    FWIW this is simply my opinion, but nonetheless I think this was easily avoidable. Zimmerman could have just told police the direction where the kid was headed and end of story.

    • I think you’re making a lot of assumptions here, and perhaps we should just leave this to a jury who is actually being presented with evidence. However, let’s talk about it just for funsies:

      “Second, Martin wasn’t doing anything illegal.”

      Neither was Zimmerman. Ill-advised perhaps but not illegal. In fact, most accounts acknowledge that Martin physically attacked Zimmerman, not the other way around. Some random guy in my neighborhood can verbally accost me all day long and it doesn’t give me the legal or ethical power to kick his @$$. So if we assume that the legality of Zimmerman’s use of force is still undecided (something about a giant show trial and media circus), then at this point in time the only person who can be confirmed as having committed an illegal act in this situation (assault) is Martin. Following someone in a public place is legal. Assault is not.

      So to paraphrase what you said:

      “Well if Zimmerman had just waited for the Police, Martin would still be alive”

      Don’t you think the converse applies? For example:

      “If Martin had just called the police when Zimmerman began following him, he would still be alive.” We know he had a cellphone.

      Poor decision making by both? Seems like it, but to squarely place the bulk of the blame on Zimmerman like you’re suggesting seems inappropriate. He too, to use your words, wasn’t doing anything illegal. That argument can’t work for one and not the other.

      Just sayin’

    • Here’s a tip: If you need to lie to support your position, it probably isn’t worth supporting.

    • People do ill-advised and just plain stupid things all the time, usually without (significant) consequence. Heck, some of ’em rake in plenty of cash – Jersey Shore, Kardashians, etc.

      Merely taking an ill-advised action isn’t grounds for so much as a citation.

    • but he did the wrong thing by disobeying the dispatcher and personally trying to question Martin.
      Citation needed. According to the call record, he was following him, they said not to, he said “OK” and went back to his car. Then your beloved Martin came up and initiated a confrontation.

      but this kid didn’t have to die

      No, he didn’t. All he had to do was not try to murder someone and he wouldn’t have been shot. It’s THAT simple. If you act like a thug and assault people to prove how tough you are, eventually someone is going to shoot your ass.

      Seriously, enough evidence has been released now to firmly show that Martin assaulted Zimmerman and Zimmerman was the one screaming for help. Why are you still defending a thug who got shot while trying to kill someone?

  6. “Avoidable” is a far step from 2nd degree murder. A charge of “unnecessary killing” (FSS 782.11) manslaughter would have been more appropriate, although still untenable.

    • well… I think the whole deal here is so that they can actually get a charge to stick. If they can prove “it was avoidable” i.e speeding on the freeway, they have a chance of sticking him with manslaughter. That said… It doesnt negate the fact that Zimmerman was attacked. What was it? Intermediate Range – 50-100cm thats 19in to ~3.28feet. That sounds about the same distance from the check of an attacker in relation to the barrel of a man on his back.

      So over all this. HUGE DISTRACTION. Meanwhile in Yemen…

      Hope and Change my ass…

      Sorry for the rant.. I quit smoking yesterday.

    • Exactly. I think Zimmerman’s did something stupid by following an unknown person on foot when he had lost track of him in the car.

      Of course Martin’s death was avoidable. But, unless Zimmerman shot or laid hands on Martin FIRST, once Martin started throwing punches (especially on the ground*), Zimmerman had every right to shoot Martin to defend his own life. Because there’s no way to prove what was said, the only way the prosecution can win this is to show that Zimmerman went hands on first.

      *If your head is touching the ground and you take a solid hit, you will be knocked out, and any unarmed 4 year old has the physical ability to kill any unconscious adult. Ergo a ground fight to me is a deadly force situation.

      • As a use of force instructor I can confirm that in groundfighting if you find yourself in a position of disadvantage and reasonably believe death or serious injury is imminent, it has absolutely become a deadly force scenario.

  7. Yeah. But Zimmerman was cold-cocked by Martin when he was en-route back to his vehicle, after being advised by the 911 operator to do so.

    The “LameStream” media narrative fails. Now they will fall all over them selves to ignore it.

    Avoidable? Zimmerman’s a Neighborhood Watch Captain. Looks like he was doing his job.

    Charlie

  8. “That was George and he was not just yelling, he sounded like he was screaming for his life,” the elder Zimmerman said.”

    Whatever.. thats all BS. Your mom or dad would say this sh*t even if it wasn’t. This whole ‘does this sound like your son’ nonsense is BS. If it isn’t obvious who it is, disregard it, it’s a wash.

    So over this case.

    1) He could have avoided the confrontation, ok i get it. It’s reasonable to say that, as most LTC/CCW carriers AVOID confrontation. He found trouble, not the other way around.

    2) Martin, being a stupid juvenile, went ahead and attacked someone…

    A few years back I got in a fight with a dude at a bar… I was read the riot act by my girlfriend for a VERY VERY VERY TRUE statement. “What if he had a gun? Your into guns, you should know better, if he had a gun you could be dead right now J. What if that was you? Huh? What if that was you? Yeah, thought so. There is no excuse for getting into a fight.”

    I agree 100000%. I dont have an LTC/CCW and in those days, I didn’t deserve one. I was much to juvenile and went out all to often with my friends.

    In all honesty, she was right. We live in a society where regardless of wether or not your on one side or the other, if there was a gun involved, and you got shot dead… YOUR DEAD. There is no restart. There is now spawn point. It’s game over. Tell that to a jury, to ba you mouthed off to the wrong guy that night.

    • You are uninformed. The identification of the voice as Zimmerman’s by his father is backed by eyewitness testimony.

    • Whatever.. thats all BS. Your mom or dad would say this sh*t even if it wasn’t. This whole ‘does this sound like your son’ nonsense is BS. If it isn’t obvious who it is, disregard it, it’s a wash.

      Right, except for the fact that A) there were eyewitnesses stating it was Zimmerman calling for help and B) Trayvon’s father said it was NOT Trayvon calling for help. So, would you like to lie some more to support your position?

  9. “he (Martin) had THC in his system”

    Now we know who is really responsible. It is the USG for being in a partnership with the Cartels who are in a partnership with Mexico’s politicians. The drug money coming from American citizens the buyers of drugs funds the ability of Mexico to keep buying military grade guns from the USG. Washington politicians with their policies are, for the most part, making it easy to bring drugs into America.

      • y’think?

        Apparently the running gag around here is demonstrating that everything is Eric Holder’s fault. 😉

        There are worse hobbies.

        • I think the real issue at hand here is that people become so dangerously assaultive* and ravenously violent* when using marijuana…

          * against candy, potato chips and dominos pizza

        • Maybe if Trayvon had still been buzzed things would have turned out differently, but the numbers on the coroner’s report (which I may have misinterpreted, I am not a trained professional on the subject) indicate trace levels, not amounts likely to indicate impairment.

  10. hhmmm well still doesn’t tell me that Mr Z didn’t instigate.
    Maybe he started it and then wound up getting his ass kicked. So he draws his gun and shoots Trayvon. It is plausible.
    I think what the prosecution is going to show or present is the 911 call that Zimmerman made. It shows intent, and frame of mind. If Trayvon’s Girlfriend testifies about what she supposedly heard, that will be pretty damning. It would mean Mr Zimmerman started it. If he did and started to loose it still makes him the instigator. At that point I am not sure if murder 2 would stick but manslaughter would. I am also really interested in the crime lab information. Blood spatter and location could tell us a lot.

    • “Maybe he started it and then wound up getting his ass kicked. So he draws his gun and shoots Trayvon. It is plausible.”

      It’s more than plausible, it is precisely what happened. He chased someone down, started a confrontation, and got his ass kicked. He may very well have been defending himself when he pulled the trigger, but he was defending himself from his own actions, not the random act of someone else.

      • Got any proof? This type of situation is exactly why the burden of proof is Beyond Reasonable Doubt in criminal cases. To my eye, the case against Zimmerman doesn’t even meet the civil preponderance of evidence (>50%) burden.

        I put the likelihood of who used force first at an even 50/50.

        Zimmerman still was stupid for getting out of his truck, but what he did was not illegal unless he was the first to use force in the confrontation.

    • It doesn’t matter. Here are the statutes. Read them. Not only is Zimmerman allowed to use lethal force, the state is in clear violation of the law by arresting and charging him. Angela Corey should be disbarred like Mike Nifong. If you want to say Zimmerman was the “aggressor”, he’s still allowed to use lethal force.

      http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

      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.
      History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
      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.
      History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.
      776.031 Use of force in defense of others.—A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
      History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1189, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2005-27.
      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).
      History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27.
      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.
      History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

  11. I see another rehash of the Duke Lacrosse case. Sharpton and Jackson did their finest work stoking the racial flames and will give no apology if proven wrong. I love the media too, this is the first time in my 40 years I’ve ever heard the term “White – Latino” let alone “White – substitute any other race”.

  12. I’ve been skeptical about that picture with the blood. You never know what’s been photo shopped on the internet and that sure differs from some of the first images we saw. Now they’re reporting black eyes and a broken nose. I frankly don’t believe it.

    • Ok, ignore the picture. Now look at the Police reports where from USA Today:
      “Officer Jonathan Mead recognized Zimmerman as the neighborhood watch head. “Zimmerman appeared to have a broken and bloody nose and swelling of his face,” Mead said.
      Another officer reported taking a photo of Zimmerman’s injuries with his personal phone. The documents released include a photo of Zimmerman with what appears to be blood coming from his nose.”

      or from ABC:
      “Two police officers reported that when they arrived at the scene of the shooting, Zimmerman seemed to have a battered nose and bloodied face. One wrote that his “facial area was bloodied,” and the back of his clothing was soiled with wet grass.
      “Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and the back of his head,” Officer Ricardo Ayala wrote.
      Another officer wrote, “I saw that Zimmerman’s face was bloodied and it appeared to me that his nose was broken.””

      So sure, the pictures that the Police released to the Press could have been faked. But why would the Police or the Press fake evidence?

      Black Eyes take some time to develop into really noticeable shiners (especially when they’re caused by remote trauma like a broken nose), and a broken nose isn’t particularly obvious unless it’s really severe (in which case it would be threatening an airway and Zimmerman wouldn’t really be given much of an option re: the Hospital).

      Besides all of that, once you’re on the ground taking face shots, it only takes one good blow to dribble your head into the ground and you’ll be out. A ground fight is a deadly force situation regardless of the presence or absence of weapons, so Zimmerman’s injuries are only relevant in that they show that Martin was in the process of inflicting force; their severity isn’t relevant at all. The injuries don’t show who initiated the force, and that’s the only issue in question.

      The trial will boil down to one question:
      Did Martin initiate the use of force or did Zimmerman, and I don’t see any chance that the prosecution will be able to prove that Zimmerman did with the evidence the public currently has access to.

    • Sigh. It’s been revealed that the picture of his bloody head was taken at the scene by a Sanford police officer. Since it was taken with an iPhone, the photo is geotagged and time stamped, which revealed it was taken on scene 3 minutes after the shooting.

      And now you’re suggesting the doctor would put his career on the line and submit a false medical report to save George Zimmerman? Not likely. You’re also missing the photos taken IN THE POLICE STATION showing Zimmerman bleeding and swollen.

      You were duped by the media. It happens. But when clear evidence to the contrary of what you believe is released, you should change your mind.

      • “You were duped by the media. It happens. But when clear evidence to the contrary of what you believe is released, you should change your mind.”

        We can only hope that Mikeb can ever listen to clear evidence that contradicts his “common sense.”

      • “You were duped by the media. It happens. But when clear evidence to the contrary of what you believe is released, you should change your mind.”

        We can all only hope that Mikeb can ever listen to clear evidence that contradicts his “common sense.”

  13. “Also, FWIW, Martin’s autopsy report revealed that he had THC in his system at the time of his death.”

    Is this meant to support Zimmerman or Martin? (Is this supposed to show Martin as a drug addled youth, or is it to imply Martin was high and mellow at the time of the shooting?)

    Why is there no mention of medication Zimmerman was prescribed and using? Why is there not a parallel “FWIW” for Zimmerman?

      • “According to the report, prior to the shooting Zimmerman had been prescribed Adderall and Temazepam, medications that can cause side effects such as agitation and mood swings, but in fewer than 10 percent of patients.” – ABC News Exclusive
        This is a medication used to treat ADHD. I know it is ABC, but, but has been widely reported.

      • “According to the report, prior to the shooting Zimmerman had been prescribed Adderall and Temazepam, medications that can cause side effects such as agitation and mood swings, but in fewer than 10 percent of patients.” – ABC News Exclusive

        These are used to treat ADHD and insomnia, from what I read at WebMD.

  14. Avoidability is not a criteria for a criminal charge. Most people who are victims of street crime could have avoided being attacked, mugged, raped etc. The question remains who started the fight.

    Let’s go back to the 911 call.

    Zimmerman: We’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there’s a real suspicious guy. It’s Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about.

    He says the suspicious person could be high on drugs. Lo and behold the autopsy shows that Martin is high on drugs. So Zimmerman didn’t profile Martin because he was black and in a hoodie. He profiled Martin as someone who looked “up to no good” or high on drugs.” Yes , he made a bad decision to go out after him but remember he was returning to his truck when the altercation to place.

    I am sure that most of you have never tried Marijuana (/sarc) and probably unfamiliar with what happens when you get high. You get the munchies and there is nothing like sugar to satisfy your craving. That is why Martin went to the 7-11 and that is why he was acted erraticly on the way back. Martin was high, euphoric and feeling tough when he confronted Zimmerman. I have no doubt that Martin looked at Zimmerman in his impaired state of mind and thought he could take Zimmerman. As the eyewitness described Martin was beating Zimmerman “martial arts” style. If Martin had sufficient martial arts training that constitutes assault with a deadly weapon and justifies Zimmerman’s use of lethal force.

    Bottom line is that finding that the Zimmerman could have avoided the confrontation was made in the original police report and is irrelevant to any criminal charges. Bad decisions that don’t involve breaking the law cannot be the basis for a criminal charge. All the forensic evidence and eyewitness testimony support Zimmerman’s version of the events.

  15. Today we discovered that THC causes lead poisoning….

    That’s a stupid part of this “narrative”. Its clearly being emphasized since it safely plays to prejudices that conclude Martin deserved to get shot. In reality, “traces of THC” had nothing to do with his death. It was the 124gr of lead that did it.

    • No, but THC mixed with a bit of attempted murder is likely to result in a fatal dose of lead poisoning…..

  16. As a general rule of self preservation, you shouldn’t take risks if you have a gun that you wouldn’t take without one. TTAG should, at best, have Zimmerman as IGOTD. Zimmerman’s own defense statement is he thought the kid was older then he was and might be armed, so who did Zimmerman see himself as? Jus because two idiots get in a fight doesn’t make one of them right. I’m a big fan of TTOG, but their support of either one of these idiots is kinda hard to fathom.

    • I think 1 response would have gotten you message across, but as they say repetition, repetition, repetition….repetition.

      I don’t support all of Zimmerman’s actions that night. He definitely made some errors in judgment. I would however say that many people have rushed to judgment, so it is good to see someone present the other side of this unfortunate incident.

    • Seems to me the best way to cya would be to dial 911 and describe the suspicious person who looks like he is up to something and possibly on drugs and etc. I’d think that it wouldn’t hurt if you ended up shooting someone who was in fact armed, who didn’t live in the neighborhood, who wasn’t carrying candy, and wasn’t a teenager. If the person shot had been a 30 year old excon recently released from the state pen with a knife in his pocket and a screwdriver from across the tracks, nobody would be thinking about Zimmerman today. Fact is he assumed alot of BS about Trayvon and when he was asked if he was following he seemed to rush off the phone instead of getting is behind back in his car like he had some sense. He confronted a stranger who had no idea who he was got what he was looking for a fight. He most likely was losing the fight and used excessive force to save his pride! Yeah he thought your son was older because he was kicking my A$$’like a grown man so I shot him and thought it wouldn’t be a big deal. It was self defense.

  17. There were two guys with cell phones on the street that night. One called 911. The other didn’t. Zimmerman called because he was concerned about Martin. Martin didn’t call, so how concerned was he about Zimmerman? And if Martin had called, what would the operator have told both of them?

    And the cop who wanted Zimmerman arrested because the shooting could have been avoided if Zimmerman stayed in his car? Maybe, but that’s not what the law of Florida or any other state requires in order to assert self-defense. The statement is just more mindless babble from yet another LEO who doesn’t know the laws he’s supposed to enforce.

    • Unlike Ralph I am not a lawyer, but it sure does seem like the likelihood of a second-degree murder conviction is rapidly disappearing over the horizon. Can the prosecution change their charge, or can the jury convict of a lesser charge in Florida? There’s a better case to be made for manslaughter (not much, but some) but were I GZ’s lawyer I would make the prosecution attempt to prove their 2d-murder charge or acquit my client. Short of a very tilted jury there is no “depraved mind” here, at least not on GZ’s part.

      Have any details come out about the pistol? Was it jammed, did it FTE, etc.?

    • It didn’t become a matter of self defense UNTIL ZIMMERMAN EXITED HIS VEHICLE. It became a matter of self defense due to circumstances that ZIMMERMANS ACTIONS BROUGHT ABOUT. So Martin is guilty because he “looked” like he was somewhere he didn’t belong?

      • So is Zimmerman’s completely lawful exiting of his vehicle grounds for criminal assault by Martin? You had best check yourself. If you don’t you’ll be walking down the “wrong street” someday and YOUR attacker will be freed because “Bruce could have avoided it by not being in that neighborhood.”

        Zimmerman could have hypothetically gotten out of his car, screamed at Martin, called him a racial slur, followed him, yelled at him some more, insulted his mother then uttered another racial slur…and you know what? That STILL would not justify Martin’s physical assault on Zimmerman. Maybe Ralph or another attorney can chime in here, but the law doesn’t recognize lawful (even if rude and very poorly judged) conduct, no matter how offensive, as justification for the use of force that Martin applied to Zimmerman. Period. If that were the case, people could physically attack the protestors at Veterans’ funerals all day long and get off scott free. But they can’t. Use of force can only be applied to defend one’s self and others. That’s why this ENTIRE argument about avoidability, in the eyes of the LAW, is bullshit.

        • That’s not true. You aren’t protected by stand your ground if you provoke the incident. Therefore you have a duty to retreat. You are not allowed use of force if you didn’t excercise an oppurtunity to retreat.

          It’s not considered self defense if you provoke as well. And Martin could have made the argument that he made a pre-emptive strike. But he can’t do that since he’s dead.

        • Actually, Nee, that is true. Lawfully following someone or insulting them will not count as “provocation” in the eyes of the law. Provocation means you actually instigated your opponent’s use of force. For example, if Zimmerman assaulted Martin first, which is highly unlikely, and got his ass kicked he would be seen as the one who provoked the struggle and would have no grounds for the use of deadly force.

          LEGAL ACTS such as following a person in a public area and being rude, however unsavory and ill advised they may be, do NOT count as legal provocation under the law. Just try to think rationally for a moment about the words that you’re typing. Have you ever been angry enough with someone that you were mean and rude to them? By your logic, that person would have the grounds to beat you until you were at risk of dying and you would have no legal recourse to use deadly force to defend yourself.
          This stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the law on your end and a misinterpretation of legal terminology.

          Your reasoning:
          Bob’s lawful conduct = provocation justifying Tim’s unlawful assault = lack of ability for Bob to defend himself lawfully with force.

          It’s nonsense. For what you’re blabbing to apply the following would have to be true:

          Bob’s UNLAWFUL conduct = provocation justifying Tim’s LAWFUL use of defensive force = lack of ability for Bob to defend himself lawfully with force.

          I feel like this argument brings the zilches out to play.

    • The purpose of laws that eliminate the duty to retreat is exactly meant to prevent the police from deciding that the incident was avoidable and you charging with a crime when defending yourself. If Zimmerman created a situation where bad things happened that was avoidable then that is matter of civil not criminal law.

    • I just wanted to say that the Tom who posted earlier is not me and I would agree with Ralph…And the cop who wanted Zimmerman arrested because the shooting could have been avoided if Zimmerman stayed in his car? Maybe, but that’s not what the law of Florida or any other state requires in order to assert self-defense. The statement is just more mindless babble from yet another LEO who doesn’t know the laws he’s supposed to enforce.

      Bingo!

  18. As a general rule of self preservation, you shouldn’t take risks if you have a gun that you wouldn’t take without one. TTAG should, at best, have Zimmerman as IGOTD, not some sort of closet hero. Zimmerman’s own defense statement is he thought the kid was older then he was and might be armed, so who did Zimmerman see himself as?

    • “so who did Zimmerman see himself as?”
      —–
      Probably as the guy getting his cranium tapped against the asphalt? Just a guess.

    • Why do people like you think his gun had anything to do with it? You don’t need a gun to ask someone a question on the street.

  19. That’s like saying the girl that got drunk and was subsequently raped put herself in the situation and it could have been easily avoided. Pure BS from someone with the benefit of hindsight.

    • Well in all situations there’s a difference between “it could have been avoided” and “we’re not going to hold this person accountable for their crime because the situation could have been avoided”.

  20. “It didn’t become a matter of self defense UNTIL ZIMMERMAN EXITED HIS VEHICLE. ”
    REALLY Bruce?!? So if you are attacked while walking back to your car from someplace that you are LEGALLY ALLOWED TO BE and doing what LEGALLY ALLOWED TO DO, that it is YOUR fault that some gangsta wannabe decides that you ‘dissed’ him and attacks you? Do you REALLY wanna go with that argument? Cause if you do, then you better STAY IN YOUR HOME and send OUT for pizza every day or whatever else you think you may want in order to leave the safety of your home. GZ didn’t attack Travon, at least according to all the evidence that has been released so far, he was ATTACKED. And I haven’t seen ANY real evidence that he initiated that final contact with the poor, innocent gangsta wannabe. When contact is broken off by someone that you may feel is a threat to you and YOU re-initiate it, the YOU become the aggressor, NOT the other person, regardless of who began the episode.

    • Lay out the “factual evidence” that he was attacked. So far, we have the older zimmerman saying Martin attacked him. Conversely there is a female who claims she heard Zimmerman confront and push Martin. You have two conflucting eye witness accounts as to who was on top beating who. And finaly, the cuts and bruises only show that he was in a fight, not that he did or didn’t start the fight. All the evidence points to nothing conclusive. So where is your evidence?

      • Evidence that GZ was attacked:

        1) There are two eyewitnesses verifying his story
        2) The medical reports show injuries on TM’s hand consistent with beating someone and a gunshot wound – no other injuries. If he was struck first, he would have had other injuries. That same report shows GZ to have two black eyes, a broken nose, and lacerations on the back of his head. Again, all of this is consistent with GZ’s story and what the eyewitnesses say happened.
        3) GZ’s father said it was GZ screaming for help on the tape. TM’s father said it was NOT TM calling for help. Therefore both fathers have verified that it was GZ calling for help as he was being brutally beaten.
        4) Only the dumbest criminal alive would call the police and have them on their way, then assault someone.

        As for the girlfriends claim? Unless they subpena the phone records from the phone company and can prove that her statement is true, it’s pure hearsay without any actual evidence to support it, especially when all of the physical evidence contradicts her claim.

  21. As an old boss told me once, “There is a fine line between illegal and immoral.”

    Do I think that George Zimmerman broke the law? I’m not a lawyer (though a long, long time ago, in a county far far away, I used to be a deputy sheriff), but based on what I’ve read, I don’t think that Zimmerman broke the law. I think he used reasonable force to defend himself from what he perceived as a deadly threat. (Namely a 180 lb kid sitting on his chest and pounding his head on the pavement.)

    I think a reasonable jury (if it gets that far) should acquit him. Morally, I think he screwed up, and will answer to a much higher power than the State of Florida. When one chooses to arm himself, one takes on a great deal of responsibility. I think part of that responsibility is to avoid confrontations that can turn violent. If Martin had been in the act of committing a violent crime, then MAYBE Zimmerman should have gotten out of his car. A punk (and I think we can all agree, Saint Trayvon of Stanton was a punk) walking behind houses…call the cops, then go home. Zimmerman didn’t.

    Who is ultimately responsible for Martin’s death? I believe it was Martin, he assaulted a man, probably unprovoked. However, Zimmerman unnecessarily set a chain of events into motion that allowed Martin to screw up and lose his life.

  22. “Since it’s provable that all ‘humans’ are genetically no more than a slight variance from the root-stock indigenous primates– which correctly interpreted, translates into the fact that all ‘humans’ are members of the same ‘race’, — when references are made to distinctions among variants within the group and attributed to ‘race’…among the many questions which immediately arise are those in regard to ignorance, intent and purpose.”
    Gw

    “Conscience, Morality and Rights my friends, Conscience, Morality and Rights.”
    Gw

  23. In my experience working corporate loss prevention and etc. if you approach someone and attempt to engage them in even a conversation you have caused them to alter there course or even stop to talk to ou when they were otherwise oing about their business on their merry way to wherever up to and including Timbuktu you have detained them. Period! George Zimmerman following Trayvon and approaching him in his capacity as a neighborhood watch person in my experience would constitute a detention the fact that Trayvon was not and had not committed any crime would make approaching him and saying anything to him at all an unlawful detention. In the corporate world that would be a problem for George he would be fired and Trayvon would be getting an appology and college paid for.

    I have gone to a friends home (a single female) and had a nosey and obnoxious neighbor confront me because she “never” has company according to him. Confronting was coming out of his garage and crossing the street and coming up behind me as I was getting out of the car and in an authoritative tone asking me where I was going? I gave him way more info than he wanted to hear at the moment and I am sure he will never do that again in his life. The point is there are busy body George Zimmermans everywhere who feel they have the right to decide who should come and go in their neighborhood their street and wherever they wish to control. The friend I was visiting let me know that she never even spoke to this bozo before. She is a single business woman living in a neighborhood full of families and basically drives in the garage and shuts the door and is rarely seen outside unless she is driving off. This busy body is dying to know how she can afford to live there, why she has no kids, no husband, and etc.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *