Zimmerman Medical Report Shows Broken Nose, Lacerations..."

[De Selby]

Fistful, what do you beleive is different about leaving the front door for skittles, and leaving your car to follow a suspicious person who looked at you, and then ran away?   I'm not sure why anyone else should be troubled to explain how those two situations are fundamentally different.

[gunsmith]

heck then he could have taken the kid for a car ride  drowned him then expect the medal of freedom in a few decades

LOL!!!! - I really did laugh, really loud, scared the cat and the dogs looked concerned.

[roo_ster]

AmbulanceDriver, your read of the statute might make sense to you, but I can guarantee you that in framing the instruction, the standard for "exhaust all reasonable means" of escape will be one that is essentially impossible to meet, as it is in most jurisdictions.

Really doesn't inspire much faith in judges or the legal system.  "Yes, the law was written explicitly to account for this exception, but I am going to rig it such that it reflects the outcome I desire."

I wonder, what duty toward honesty (in dealing with agents of the gov't) do we have when they explicitly deal dishonestly with us?

"Rushing to meet danger." "Make yourself unsafe." The problem with these phrases is that, when you apply them to George Zimmerman, you're talking about a guy who was asked to keep an eye on his neighborhood. Making himself unsafe, and putting himself in danger, is what his neighbors wanted him to do for the safety of the neighborhood. If this is made the element of a crime, how can we be free to walk through our own neighborhoods? How can any future Trayvon Martins or George Zimmermans go out for Skittles or keep an eye out for burglars, if merely leaving their car or their house on foot is going to be seen as initiating a conflict?

I don't doubt that a jury might see exiting one's car in one's own neighborhood as damning evidence for GZ. I just wonder why you seem to be pulling for that point of view.

It is to the state's benefit and to lawyers' benefit to require a talmudic scholar to examine one's actions for any possibly adverse interpretation before any action is taken.

[De Selby]

Roo ster, do you honestly believe it takes a scholar to see how going into the dark after some guy who you think is behaving suspiciously could lead to bad things???

[Fitz]

Roo ster, do you honestly believe it takes a scholar to see how going into the dark after some guy who you think is behaving suspiciously could lead to bad things???

Bad choices do not justification for a hellacious beating make.

I don't think anyone has argued that Zimmerman is intelligent.

In fact, I think most everyone here agrees that Zimmerman is a gigantic moron.

However, comma, once he started getting slammed into the pavement and was in danger, use of force was justified.

[makattak]

Roo ster, do you honestly believe it takes a scholar to see how going into the dark after some guy who you think is behaving suspiciously could lead to bad things???

COULD is the operative word here. That "could" is a slightly higher chance of bad things happening, not a certainty.

Walking out my door could lead to bad things too.

I'm not going to play monday morning quarterback and attack Zimmerman's intelligence. I would venture to guess that 9 times out of ten, going out of your house or getting out of your car to see what some miscreant youth had been up to will result in absolutely nothing happening. In fact, I'd bet the odds are even higher than that.

In hindsight, he would have been far better off staying in the car. Without the benefit of hindsight, I cannot make that determination.

According to Zimmerman's version, he stepped out to see where Martin had run to and then was attempting to find an address- both actions in response to questions from the dispatcher. Allow me to show you the transcript:

He’s running. [2:08]

911 dispatcher:

He’s running? Which way is he running?

Zimmerman:

Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood. [2:14]

911 dispatcher:

OK, which entrance is that he’s headed towards?

Zimmerman:

The back entrance.

911 dispatcher:

Are you following him? [2:24]

Zimmerman:

Yeah. [2:25]

911 dispatcher:

OK.

We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]

Zimmerman:

OK. [2:28]

911 dispatcher:

Alright, sir, what is your name? [2:34]

Zimmerman:

George. He ran.

911 dispatcher:

Alright, where are you going to meet with them at?

Zimmerman:

Um, if they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the clubhouse and, uh, straight past the clubhouse and make a left and then go past the mailboxes you’ll see my truck. [3:10]

911 dispatcher:

Alright, what address are you parked in front of? [3:21]

Zimmerman:

Um, I don’t know. It’s a cut-through so I don’t know the address. [3:25]

So maybe he shouldn't have been so pro-active in trying to be able to answer the dispatcher's questions, but I'm not willing to condemn a man for that.

[Perd Hapley]

Fistful, what do you beleive is different about leaving the front door for skittles, and leaving your car to follow a suspicious person who looked at you, and then ran away?   I'm not sure why anyone else should be troubled to explain how those two situations are fundamentally different.

Then explain it, please. Am I now supposed to hide in my house or my car, if someone looks at me? If a suspicious person is in my neighborhood, have I now a duty to remain hidden? Is running away now to be taken as a challenge to a duel? You said it would be easy to explain. Well?

How can you justify Trayvon Martin's going out alone, after dark, merely to get Skittles and beverage? Was he not aware that burglaries had been going on? Did he not have a duty to stay in the house, lest he encounter one of these miscreants? And didn't Trayvon Martin further realize he might look suspicious and therefore provoke a confrontation with the neighborhood watch?

Edited to add:
In my last few posts, I'm not talking about the whole case, or the totality of the evidence. I'm just talking about Zimmerman getting out of his car and going on foot, and how or why that would incriminate him. Allegedly, getting out of the car, having seen a suspicious person walking away, makes Z liable for M's death. If it were alleged that Z had said, "I think he will attack me," or "He looks like he's going to assault someone," the allegation might make sense. But Z's comments to police only pertained to M looking suspicious and burglars getting away with stuff. That does not make Z look like he was knowingly entering into a confrontation.

I heard some cars were broken into at Shakespeare Festival St. Louis, last night. I was planning to go, tomorrow, but I guess I'd better not.

[T.O.M.]

Hey kids, I did a little bit of research on the issue of self-defense under Florida law.  Let me say that it is nothing at all like Ohio law. The reason I point this out is that all of my opinions were based on 18 years of experience in Ohio.  Florida has specific statutes regarding self-defense.  They also have a specific staute on this issue, § 776.041. Use of force by aggressor, which states:

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.

So now the question is not so much whether it was smart or dumb for Zimmerman to leave his car, but whether his actions of leaving his car and following Martin would be considered sufficient provocation to justify Martin's use of force against Zimmerman.

I still don't believe that this case is an easy win for Zimmerman, but I'm going to graciously bow out of further debate.  Florida law is far different than Ohio law, and I don't have the time or inclination to spend the time necessary to reasearch Florida case law to gain enough knowledge to further comment on the case or give opinions as to what may happen.

My parting words on this thread are to express that I still hope that this case doesn't result in bad laws being passed which will haunt all of us and our rights under 2A to defend ourselves and our families.  I fear that it will.

[AmbulanceDriver]

Hey kids, I did a little bit of research on the issue of self-defense under Florida law.  Let me say that it is nothing at all like Ohio law. The reason I point this out is that all of my opinions were based on 18 years of experience in Ohio.  Florida has specific statutes regarding self-defense.  They also have a specific staute on this issue, § 776.041. Use of force by aggressor, which states:

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.

So now the question is not so much whether it was smart or dumb for Zimmerman to leave his car, but whether his actions of leaving his car and following Martin would be considered sufficient provocation to justify Martin's use of force against Zimmerman.

I still don't believe that this case is an easy win for Zimmerman, but I'm going to graciously bow out of further debate.  Florida law is far different than Ohio law, and I don't have the time or inclination to spend the time necessary to reasearch Florida case law to gain enough knowledge to further comment on the case or give opinions as to what may happen.

My parting words on this thread are to express that I still hope that this case doesn't result in bad laws being passed which will haunt all of us and our rights under 2A to defend ourselves and our families.  I fear that it will.

Chris, I'm right there with ya on the worry of "Bad cases make bad laws"......

[makattak]

Chris, I'm right there with ya on the worry of "Bad cases make bad laws"......

My problem is that this isn't a "bad case." This is a "racially charged case".

If Mr. Martin had been white, does anyone honestly believe this would have made it past the cops' decision that it was self-defense?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

My problem is that this isn't a "bad case." This is a "racially charged case".

If Mr. Martin had been white, does anyone honestly believe this would have made it past the cops' decision that it was self-defense?

or if zmmerman was black

[gunsmith]

imo the case will drag out till the winter time, after the November election.
GZ is cleared on all charges, some of the radlibs who have half the attention span of Rev Al Charlatan will frown and whine and Romney will appoint an awesome SCOTUS Judge and we will finally have National Reciprocity.

[Chester32141]

Based on the assumption that Zimmerman legally defended himself, what harm would it do to his case if he said that he normally does not carry a gun but keeps one in the car and slipped it into his pocket before getting out of the vehicle, just in case ....

I'm sure I read that his PF-9 was in a holster so that is not the case here but would it hurt his right to defend himself if he had slipped it into his belt before exiting the vehicle ?

[De Selby]

Chris, I had read the statutes and taken a cruise through some of the FL online resources - SYG definitely changes things in terms of affirmative defense vs elements, but this isn't an SYG case.  The exceptions in the statute for "exhausting all reasonable means of escape" and "withdrawing from physical contact" essentially replicate common law rules applying to the aggressor.    As in most jurisdictions, being classified as the aggressor makes self-defense an unlikely claim.

Fistful, yes, if youre following someone slowly in your car, and that person runs away from you into a dark alleyway, you should be expected to know that the person wants to get away from you, and that following the person into the alleyway could be seen as initiating a confrontation.   There is absolutely nothing unreasonable about asking the public to be able to work that out for themselves in similar circumstances.


The totality of the evidence matters greatly in every shooting.  You can't ignore it and expect to have a meaningful discussion about a case.

[Perd Hapley]

Fistful, yes, if youre following someone slowly in your car, and that person runs away from you into a dark alleyway, you should be expected to know that the person wants to get away from you, and that following the person into the alleyway could be seen as initiating a confrontation.   There is absolutely nothing unreasonable about asking the public to be able to work that out for themselves in similar circumstances.


The totality of the evidence matters greatly in every shooting.  You can't ignore it and expect to have a meaningful discussion about a case.

Yes, that was my point - that it can't be as simple as just exiting one's vehicle or other "place of safety."

[Fitz]

The totality of the evidence matters greatly in every shooting.  You can't ignore it and expect to have a meaningful discussion about a case.

Kettle, pot

[Pharmacology]

Precisely the same reason Batman does not kill:

he injects himself into situations, and thus, to kill would not be self defense.

[HankB]

Precisely the same reason Batman does not kill:

he injects himself into situations, and thus, to kill would not be self defense.

By this logic, when a police officer on patrol is attacked and kills a perp, it's not self defense, either.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

they just revoked his bond over him having more cash stashed than they knew about and an alleged second passport

[TommyGunn]

they just revoked his bond over him having more cash stashed than they knew about and an alleged second passport

He has had problems with the law before .... he's not exactly a shining example of righteous armed self-defense that the NRA would like to use in their magazine examples.
I say that independently of whether or not he is criminally liable for the Martin shooting.......

[roo_ster]

they just revoked his bond over him having more cash stashed than they knew about and an alleged second passport

If only he were a drunk driving Kenyan illegal alien, he'd be out on bail...   


Like GZ could R-U-N-O-F-T and not be hounded to ground.  Maybe he could build a raft out of inner tubes and plywood and drift off to Haiti.

At the moment, he's the "white hispanic" John Demjanjuk: gonna get hunted down and tried, no matter what...and likely the trials will continue until the "right" verdict is found.

Also, the whole, "If'n you can afford bail and a competent defense, we're not going to let you out on bail to help your defense," kind of stinks.

Last, does anyone really think he poses a threat?  I think his neighborhood watch days are over, no matter the trial results.

He has had problems with the law before .... he's not exactly a shining example of righteous armed self-defense that the NRA would like to use in their magazine examples.
I say that independently of whether or not he is criminally liable for the Martin shooting.......

This, too.

[Jamisjockey]

they just revoked his bond over him having more cash stashed than they knew about and an alleged second passport

Do you blame him? 
Guilty or not, he's screwed.

[gunsmith]

Do you blame him? 
Guilty or not, he's screwed.

Excellent point, the stashing of the cash/extra passport made me suspicious but-now that you mention it - it does seem as if they are out to get him by any means possible.

Precisely the same reason Batman does not kill:

he injects himself into situations, and thus, to kill would not be self defense.

My friend tells me this is why the Punisher is cooler then the caped crusader-none of this pc nonsense - just eliminate the bad guy the Batman always lets them go to commit more crime! down with batman!

[Monkeyleg]

My friend tells me this is why the Punisher is cooler then the caped crusader-none of this pc nonsense - just eliminate the bad guy the Batman always lets them go to commit more crime! down with batman!

I always preferred Charles Bronson in that kind of role.

Now back to our regularly scheduled arguing.

[Jamisjockey]

If he is aquitted, you know this administration will bring civil rights charges.  Literally the day of the aquittal I'd be on a plane or boat out of the country.