HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Prosecutors: Zimmerman ig...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 08:57 PM

Prosecutors: Zimmerman ignored warning to back off

Source: AP-Excite


By TAMARA LUSH and GREG BLUESTEIN

SANFORD, Fla. (AP) - After weeks in hiding, George Zimmerman made his first courtroom appearance Thursday in the shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, and prosecutors outlined their murder case in court papers, saying the neighborhood watch volunteer followed and confronted the black teenager after a police dispatcher told him to back off.

The brief outline, contained in an affidavit filed in support of the second-degree murder charges, appeared to contradict Zimmerman's claim that Martin attacked him after he had turned away and was returning to his vehicle.

In the affidavit, prosecutors also said that Martin's mother identified cries for help heard in the background of a 911 call as her son's. There had been some question as to whether Martin or Zimmerman was the one crying out.

The account of the shooting was released as Zimmerman, 28, appeared at a four-minute hearing in a jailhouse courtroom, setting in motion what could be a long, drawn-out process, or an abrupt and disappointingly short one for the Martin family because of the strong legal protections contained in Florida's "stand your ground" law on self-defense.


Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20120413/D9U3N3HG1.html




George Zimmerman during a court hearing Thursday April 12, 2012, in Sanford, Fla. Zimmerman has been charged with second-degree murder in the shooting death of the 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. (AP Photo/Gary W. Green, Orlando Sentinel, Pool)

47 replies, 7141 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 47 replies Author Time Post
Reply Prosecutors: Zimmerman ignored warning to back off (Original post)
Omaha Steve Apr 2012 OP
Baitball Blogger Apr 2012 #1
steve2470 Apr 2012 #38
proReality Apr 2012 #2
gateley Apr 2012 #3
Gore1FL Apr 2012 #5
DallasNE Apr 2012 #21
xtraxritical Apr 2012 #29
DallasNE Apr 2012 #36
JDPriestly Apr 2012 #6
-..__... Apr 2012 #9
bjobotts Apr 2012 #12
csziggy Apr 2012 #16
24601 Apr 2012 #23
xtraxritical Apr 2012 #30
loudsue Apr 2012 #20
Flatulo Apr 2012 #39
-..__... Apr 2012 #40
Flatulo Apr 2012 #42
freshwest Apr 2012 #4
Flatulo Apr 2012 #43
freshwest Apr 2012 #44
mucifer Apr 2012 #7
groundloop Apr 2012 #28
janx Apr 2012 #35
freshwest Apr 2012 #41
Flatulo Apr 2012 #45
freshwest Apr 2012 #46
pasto76 Apr 2012 #8
Stardust Apr 2012 #10
pasto76 Apr 2012 #11
former9thward Apr 2012 #15
xtraxritical Apr 2012 #31
slackmaster Apr 2012 #33
TheWraith Apr 2012 #17
obamanut2012 Apr 2012 #26
obamanut2012 Apr 2012 #25
DesertDiamond Apr 2012 #13
behrstar Apr 2012 #14
lark Apr 2012 #19
obamanut2012 Apr 2012 #27
BobbyBoring Apr 2012 #18
Sen. Walter Sobchak Apr 2012 #22
Cosmocat Apr 2012 #24
xtraxritical Apr 2012 #32
hedgehog Apr 2012 #34
LiberalLovinLug Apr 2012 #37
roody Apr 2012 #47

Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 08:58 PM

1. This is all sounding so logical, I smell a trap.

Seriously. Things are not this logical in the county. It makes too much sense. It's obvious this isn't in the hands of the local boys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 05:24 PM

38. ......



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 09:14 PM

2. "Punks"?

He definitely says "coons"!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proReality (Reply #2)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 09:34 PM

3. At first they were trying to pass it off as "goons" -- I have no idea where "punks" came from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proReality (Reply #2)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 09:50 PM

5. I have listend to the tape several times

and honestly, I have heard it both ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #5)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 04:48 PM

21. I'm With You

The first word is pretty clear but the second word cannot be made out with certainty to the naked ear. I'm guessing that the prosecution has used some kind of soundex software to make the determination it was punks. I did not hear a hard "P' though I could hear the hard "F". We will see how this plays out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #21)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 11:53 AM

29. So your saying it was "pcoonts" ?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #29)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 01:48 PM

36. Lol

I'm saying the ear cannot tell for sure what the second word is but the soundex software may be able to determine what the word was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proReality (Reply #2)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 09:51 PM

6. He said oooo. So it most have been poooonks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proReality (Reply #2)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 11:16 PM

9. How sure are you?

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101490777

If there's this much doubt/disagreement amongst DU'ers, how much "reasonable" doubt would Zimmermans lawyer(s) need to show in order to win an acquittal?

All it takes is one juror to result in a mistrial/hung jury.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -..__... (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 01:06 AM

12. Listen to father's recounting

It is there that one can see it is his father who has been telling George what to say and giving him his story just by the way the father tells it. He forgets to say "my son told me or my son said..." He just tells this story as if it is himself, the father who is at the scene and doing the action. This is all fabricated...the part about George was just looking for an address (innocently enough) to give to 911. Just trying to be helpful. The tapes suggest differently. Just listen to how his father tells this "detailed" story as if he were there yet he's supposed to be recounting it from his son's explanation.
You can be sure it is his father who is coming up with this story, filling in every detail as if it were being told before the Bench with him as judge. "Murder will out".

Why and how can these people treat human life so worthlessly?
He was a 17 y/o boy...a boy. Why didn't he just wound him...or just threaten him with the gun. Why was he carrying a gun on a neighborhood watch patrol in the first place when police told these groups not to take weapons?? Was he trying to be some super hero crusader and just needed a villain to show how tough he could be since he knew he was carrying a gun? In reality this tuffy was just another bully looking for someone to dominate. Skittles and a can of tea against a bully with a gun who acts as if life is so cheap. There is a great price to pay for such actions. You killed a person George.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bjobotts (Reply #12)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 01:36 PM

16. Zimmerman knew the cops were on the way - they got there seconds after the gunshot

All Zimmerman had to do was wait and the police would have been there to deal with things. The 911 call with the screams started at 7:16, the gunshot was about 40 seconds into the call. The police were on scene at 7:17.

Aside from the forty seconds of screams for help that have been identified as Trayvon's, the other part that I think makes this second degree murder rather than just manslaughter is that Zimmerman acted recklessly, carrying and using a gun in that situation. A stray bullet could have hit anyone in any of the townhouses around the site of the murder. The police could have seen Zimmerman with the weapon and shot him.

For someone with aspirations of being a police officer Zimmerman acted in a completely irresponsible way. He had an indifference to the safety of everyone around him.

I hope this is a wedge to getting rid of the Stand Your Ground laws, but I bet that it will be decided that Zimmerman is not covered by the law as written in Florida so that issue will have to be addressed separately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #16)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 10:06 PM

23. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #16)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 11:55 AM

30. Thanks csziggy, yours is the most cogent anlysis I've seen here.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -..__... (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 04:43 PM

20. No all DUers are DUers....if you know what I mean.

Some of them come from parts unknown.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -..__... (Reply #9)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 12:24 AM

39. I don't think it matters what Zimmerman said or didn't say.

His actions alone were clearly criminal. By simply exiting his vehicle, he escalated the situation in defiance of the dispatcher's order to stay put. SYG does not give one the right to act in the manner that Zimmerman did.

I don't see any way around this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #39)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 09:27 AM

40. "Clearly criminal"?

 

A jury might be inclined to disagree with you.

They're the ones that will be hearing, deciding on the actual evidence and testimony.

Lacking any racial motive, evidence or casting doubt on the recordings, makes it all the more difficult
for Federal hate crime charges to be brought against Zimmerman should he be cleared of any 2nd degree murder charges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -..__... (Reply #40)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 03:42 PM

42. SYG does not give one the right to chase someone down,

pick a fight, then shoot them when you feel jeopardized.

Any impartial jury should be able to figure this out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 09:45 PM

4. THAT is THE issue. Open and shut. Should pass a law against 'Avoidable Homicide.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #4)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 03:44 PM

43. Hmm, there already are laws against 'avoidable homicide'.

The manslaughter statutes would do just fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #43)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 03:48 PM

44. Obviously, Zimmerman hadn't read it. He needed a K.I.S.S. reminder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 10:28 PM

7. I really wish the 911 dispatcher would have used more forceful language.

I believe he said "are you following him? You don't need to do that". He did not tell zimmerman "Don't do that". I think that might not work so well in court. It bums me out when I think about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mucifer (Reply #7)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 08:54 AM

28. Exactly, that's probably going to be a big deal in the trial

"We don't need you to do that" is a suggestion. "Don't do that" is an instruction. Big difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Reply #28)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:21 PM

35. I disagree.

The message was clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Reply #28)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 10:48 AM

41. The neighborhood watch rules were posted here on another thread. It said 'do not pursue.'

We can argue semantics, but Zimmerman didn't follow the rules of the neighborhood watch, and we would not be having a discussion if he had.

So it's valid to say that the dispatcher reminded him of something they both already knew, but had chosen to disregard and act as a vigilante.

He has a track record of 'snapping' and should not have been playing policeman. He did not have the right to detain or touch anyone, no matter how many ways one wants to parse it.

If he'd waited for the police, who were on their way, Martin may or may not have surrendered to the LEOs, Zimmerman could have gotten his pat on the back, and the fault would be Martin's if shots were fired.

If I saw someone follow me in a vehicle when I was on foot, I'd have felt scared. If he'd brandished a weapon at me, I'd scream for help. If he touched me, tried to stop me getting away, I'd fight back.

Looks like the SYG statute would have protected Martin and not Zimmermann.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #41)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 09:23 PM

45. "Looks like the SYG statute would have protected Martin and not Zimmerman"

Exactly my thoughts.

Hopefully a jury will be able to figure this out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #45)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 09:35 PM

46. Even without a gun, it might. A gun doesn't lend moral credibility to the owner. Really, it doesn't.

There seems to be a bias toward the more powerful in confrontations, as if responsible and wise behavior is inherent because of gun possession. We can clearly see from the criminal element, that's not a given.

I'm hoping this will be resolved soon. And if it's going to be publicized, that it proves to be an education for all sides involved, and not just media fodder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 10:29 PM

8. are the dispatchers law enforcement officers? In my town they are not

is it the same as when a law enforcement officer gives you a lawful order? How is it different from a crossing guard or some guy in a grocery store telling you not to do something? big question in my head.

There are a lot of dynamics with perceived authority vs actual and delegated authority at play in our everyday lives. Wondering how it will play out in a murder case

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #8)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 11:33 PM

10. Heard on the radio that Zimmerman called the direct line to an officer's desk, that he

actually spoke to an officer, not a mere dispatcher. And that officer told him the now infamous, "We don't need you to do that." Disobeying an officer's order is a felony on its own. I haven't read anything to corroborate that and it might not make any difference at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stardust (Reply #10)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 11:54 PM

11. splitting hairs...

saying "we don't need you to do that" is not a command and is completely different than being told "stop pursuing that individual" or "stay in you car until LEO arrives"

dont get me wrong, these types of wanna be tough guys make me want to vomit, and one of my personal flaws is antagonizing and dehumanizing them. Just asking questions about what the prosecutors are presenting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stardust (Reply #10)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 12:42 PM

15. You are making up laws.

Disobeying an officer is not a felony. He spoke to a dispatcher. Whether the dispatcher was an officer or not is irrelevant. The dispatcher did not "order" him to do anything. He said "We don't need you to do that". That is snot an order in any court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #15)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:00 PM

31. Either interpretation is irrelevent, all he reasonably had to do was keep an eye out

 

until the police arrived. I think any jury will understand this. The whole incident was caused by Z's deliberate provocation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stardust (Reply #10)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:11 PM

33. Sorry, but it was NOT an "order" and police don't generally have the authority to issue orders

 

They're public employees, not our bosses.

Under certain limited circumstances an officer can order a person to do something or not to do something. This wasn't one of them.

It was sound advice that Zimmerman apparently chose to ignore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #8)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 01:46 PM

17. It depends on the jurisdiction.

In big city areas, they're more likely to be actual officers, but in most places the dispatchers are civilian employees of the police department. However, refusal to follow their directions, in a manner that hampers the police response, is in some places a misdemeanor on the grounds of interfering with emergency services, similar to if you were making crank calls to 911.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Reply #17)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 08:44 AM

26. And, it can be a felony if it leads to death or grievious bodily injury

In my jurisdiction, anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #8)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 08:42 AM

25. In some jurisdictions they are

I also believe Zimmerman spoke to a uniformed officer, not "just" a dispatcher.

His actions still show intent and disregard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 04:40 AM

13. And this is the #1 in-your-face reason that he cannot claim he killed because he feared for his life

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 12:35 PM

14. On 911 call he said "I'm going after him"

So how can he claim self defense. Talking heads have said the charge is wrong for the crime and the evidence won't support the charge. Not a legal expert, but this smells like a set-up for acquittal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to behrstar (Reply #14)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 03:00 PM

19. Don't agree

This is a set-up for a plea bargain. Corey seems to be taking this very seriously and going for a conviction or else she's in the wrong industry and should be an actress..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lark (Reply #19)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 08:45 AM

27. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 01:59 PM

18. This whole incident verifies what I've said for years.

The most dangerous person in the world is a coward. George is a cowards coward. A BOY that lived in fear of everything. If he gets off, they will be hell to pay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 09:14 PM

22. Requiem for a Loser

He had no future before this fiasco and he certainly won't have one as a sixty year old convict... perhaps he will recapture his glory as a jailhouse snitch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #22)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 06:48 AM

24. yeah

he absolutely is a clown, son of privilege, and also has a history of violence - being charged with both domestic violence and for assaulting a police office before they were, surprise, dropped.

It is amazing how I WANT to believe I can no longer be surprised by the right wing, but they just find ways to be even more stunningly bizarre, and that they have come to the defense of this twit is beyond comprehension given the facts of what we KNOW occurred and his background.

I will say this, without knowing the law and sentencing for what he was charged, but I doubt he does more than 10 or so years if justice is done and he is convicted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmocat (Reply #24)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:03 PM

32. He will be subject to plenty of "justice", inside. You know what I mean?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #32)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:15 PM

34. Why is vigilante justice unacceptable on the street, but acceptable in a prison?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 05:18 PM

37. Anyone else a little suspicious of this "dream team prosecution"?

When I saw the press conference I thought it was way over the top. From a decision NOT to prosecute because "The AG wouldn't ever allow it" to a big public face-saving announcement. Its going to prosecuted by people very close to those that wrote the law in the first place and do not want to embarrass their superiors.

I would not be surprised if the prosecution "fails", to which they will say, "hey we tried...I guess the Stand your Ground laws are OK afterall"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 10:12 PM

47. He ruined his own life and took another life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread