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

[De Selby]

See, this is exactly what is doing gun owners in - having a hoodie up on a rainy night and running away from a scary looking dude (guy running being a skinny teenager, guy following in car looking vaguely like someone from the megan's law website) is grounds for a neighbourhood watchman/batman to chase you down and possibly shoot you?!

Oh yeah, the trace amounts of reefer that would've caused no impairment whatsoever to him, that must be it!  If trayvon martin smoked weed and wore a hoodie, who wouldn't chase him down armed in the night!?

I'm trying to imagine a mindset where that doesn't sound crazy, and isn't transparently frightening to non-gun owners.  Failing.

[makattak]

See, this is exactly what is doing gun owners in - having a hoodie up on a rainy night and running away from a scary looking dude (guy running being a skinny teenager, guy following in car looking vaguely like someone from the megan's law website) is grounds for a neighbourhood watchman/batman to chase you down and possibly shoot you?!

Oh yeah, the trace amounts of reefer that would've caused no impairment whatsoever to him, that must be it!  If trayvon martin smoked weed and wore a hoodie, who wouldn't chase him down armed in the night!?

I'm trying to imagine a mindset where that doesn't sound crazy, and isn't transparently frightening to non-gun owners.  Failing.

That's exactly what we're saying.

Except no one accepts uncritically that the "chasing him down" is what happened.

Or that he shot him for having a hoodie up.

But other than that, yes, we completely agree that walking around outside of other people's houses in an area with recent burglaries on a cold, rainy night is a suspicious act that warrants further attention, like keeping an eye on that person and calling police.

[Tallpine]

scary looking dude

 

[AmbulanceDriver]

Selby, I'm really starting to strain at being polite here.   So I'm going to be very careful with what I say....

See, this is exactly what is doing gun owners in - having a hoodie up on a rainy night and running away from a scary looking dude (guy running being a skinny teenager, guy following in car looking vaguely like someone from the megan's law website) is grounds for a neighbourhood watchman/batman to chase you down and possibly shoot you?!

Where has ANYONE said that THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES ALONE are justification to shoot Martin?  Point to ONE LOCATION ON HERE that it has been said that Martin deserved to be shot because he was wearing a hoodie and "running away" from Zimmerman.  The ONLY thing in my opinion that justifies Martin being shot is his attack on Zimmerman, climbing on top of him "MMA style" (from witness testimony) punching him and slamming his head into the concrete.

Frankly, based on the information that has been released so far, the only justification in my mind that would make Zimmerman guilty is if HE (Zimmerman) initiated the PHYSICAL confrontation with Martin.  Not chased him, not ran after him, not called him naughty names that hurt Martin's self esteem.  

I don't care if Zimmerman was chasing him or following him.   I don't care if Zimmerman was "profiling him".  I don't care if Zimmerman was a secret racist member of the Hispanic KKK....   I don't care if Martin was stone cold sober or stoned out of his gourd.   I don't care if Martin was a perfect angel in the past or if he had a 10 page long criminal history. 

If Martin was so scared of Zimmerman, why didn't Martin call 911?  Why did he (allegedly) return and engage Zimmerman?   If Martin initiated the PHYSICAL confrontation, then I see a clear cut case of self-defense.  

And don't give me the bushwa of "Zimmerman had him cornered."  PROVE IT.  SHOW ME THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that Zimmerman had Martin cornered.  Draw me a map of the crime scene that shows me that Zimmerman had Martin so cornered that Martin, this poor innocent skinny teenager, had no choice but to physically engage this big bad mean white hispanic Megan's law poster child.  

No more supposition, no more guessing, no more "what if Zimmerman did this.  That PROVES he's guilty!!!"

Because you know what?   This country's legal system has this darn little provision of "Innocent until PROVEN guilty."

You know who can *PROVE* him guilty?   Oh, that's right, it has to be in a COURT.

Do I think that Zimmerman made mistakes?   Absolutely.  The biggest of which was getting out of the car in the first place.   Has this possibly caused damage to the gun right's movement?  Yup.   Does that make me assume that Zimmerman is guilty?  No.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

where one person admitted on tape he was chasing someone else. 


no   but its a cool tactic   repeat a lie enough and certain folks will buy it    just not me

[dogmush]

I'm going to turn this around a little bit.

De Selby,  In your mind, not changing any of your impressions leading up to the fight.  Your idea of "chasing", and "batman".  Even if you think he looks like a pedophile.  If none of that had changed, and Zimmerman hadn't had the gun, do you think Martin would have been justified in beating Zimmerman to death?

Because that's what he was doing at the time he got shot.  So either Martain was justified in using the deadly force he was engaged in, or Zimmerman was justified in defending himself from that force. 

Do you really think following someone in the rain is justification for beating someone to death?

[Monkeyleg]

This is getting ridiculous. Can anyone list here what is actually known to be fact? Not conjecture, but actual fact. If so, please list the facts, and let's debate based upon that.

[CNYCacher]

This is getting ridiculous. Can anyone list here what is actually known to be fact? Not conjecture, but actual fact. If so, please list the facts, and let's debate based upon that.

A man was shot while beating a downed man about the head with fists.
The responding officers felt the case was so clear-cut that they didn't even bother to charge the shooter.
Various internet personalities who did not interview witnesses, were not at the scene, and generally don't know more about the case than the conjecture which they read on the internet feel that they know better than the cops.

[HankB]

This is getting ridiculous. Can anyone list here what is actually known to be fact? Not conjecture, but actual fact. If so, please list the facts, and let's debate based upon that.

Zimmerman followed Martin, a person he deemed "suspicious." At some point he left his car to follow on foot, while legally carrying a concealed handgun. Zimmerman called 911 regarding the person he thought was suspicious - both the call and a written transcript are available on-line. At the end of that call, Martin and Zimmerman apparently had not encountered each other.

A little later, an eyewitness saw Martin atop Zimmerman, administering a beating which ended only when Zimmerman shot Martin at very close range. The beginning of this fight apparently was not seen by anyone other than the two men involved.

Zimmerman sustained injuries (broken nose, black eyes, lacerations on his head) whilst Martin had a bruise or scrape on his hand. Autopsy results showed a close contact fatal shot and drugs in Martin's system which indicate he'd smoked dope; we don't know how much or when.

Zimmerman's statement that he'd stopped following Martin and was returning to his car without confronting Martin when he was attacked has not been independently confirmed, but seems to be consistent with what IS known; if anyone has poked holes in his story, it hasn't been made public. VERY sketchy information from other witnesses has surfaced, but appears  inconclusive as the testimony seems to be . . . evolving, which limits its credibility.

Various incidents from both Zimmerman's and Martin's past have been revealed, with varying interpretations.

I believe this is what we can reasonably say we know about the actual incident. Did I leave anything out, other than conjecture, extrapolation, and guesswork?

[gunsmith]

This is getting ridiculous. Can anyone list here what is actually known to be fact? Not conjecture, but actual fact. If so, please list the facts, and let's debate based upon that.

Trayvon was a little child, who's only crime was a skittle addiction.
The child was walking back to a friends house to catch the latest episode of Mr Rogers Neighborhood and rehearse a hip hop version of kumbaya .
Unbeknown to the little boy, he was being stalked by a whitelatinowerewolfhebrewpedophile that hated little boys & candy.
Suddenly, for no good reason (other then pure unadulterated racial profiling ) the whitelatinowerewolfhebrewpedophile  jumped the little boy and attempted to take his candy, the little boy bravely fought the monster, alas he was cut down with an evil hi capacity assault weapon that only the army should have that Bush forced everyone to carry.

[De Selby]

A man was shot while beating a downed man about the head with fists.
The responding officers felt the case was so clear-cut that they didn't even bother to charge the shooter.
Various internet personalities who did not interview witnesses, were not at the scene, and generally don't know more about the case than the conjecture which they read on the internet feel that they know better than the cops.

Yeah, that's accurate :(.   You left out that the lead investigator did recommend charging the shooter.  No one knows why the state attorney disagreed with the investigator.

Monkeyleg, there's an audio recording where George Zimmerman says he sees trayvon running away, says he is following trayvon, and then says "these aholes always get away.". That audio tape was recorded minutes before the shooting.

After the shooting, the police found George Zimmerman with injuries to his face and head, and trayvon Martin shot through the heart.

The frightening thing for me is how many people, while admitting the recording shows "a dumb move", fail to recognise that part of the tape as the source of zimmermans criminal woes.

Chasing someone who's running away automatically places you in serious jeopardy as a CCW holder.  This can still be true even when the person you are chasing responds with illegal or unreasonable force..  The salient fact for self defence law in this case is on the tapes; what happened afterwards would be relevant if trayvon Martin survived, because we might possibly charge him with a crime too.  That's a moot point, obviously.

There seems to be this assumption that if trayvon did anything illegal in hitting Zimmerman (no facts on that point available), then Zimmerman was legally justified.   That is a gross misunderstanding of the law of self defence. 

As a lawyer, I would not hesitate to state this:  in any state in the union, if you are armed and choose to follow  a person who is trying to get away from you (and we know for a fact that happened, it's on the tapes), you are going to have serious legal problems if a shooting occurs.   Only the most extreme circumstances (ie, witnessing a kidnapping, or getting on your knees and pleading for mercy with the person you followed stopping to acknowledge it) will redeem the situation.

I'm not sure why that's so controversial.   We all seem to agree that Zimmermans decision to follow trayvon was a bad one.  Bad decision making while armed is generally a crime.

[MechAg94]

I don't agree that following (not chasing) Martin was a bad decision.  Primarily because I don't know how close he was, how far he followed him, how fast he was going, or really anything else about the situation because that would be assumption on my part (and anyone else's).  He could have just walked down a short distance to see if he could see where he went.  We don't know those facts.  The reason everyone thinks it was a bad call is partly hindsight on the whole affair and partly self defense as his going on foot exposed him to attack.  If he had stayed in the car, there would be less opportunity for people to question his motives.  The only information we have beyond the tail end of the 911 call is that statements made by him or his father saying he stopped, headed back to the car, and was jumped.  I have seen no information that proves that is incorrect.

As for your comments about following someone while armed, IMO, that should only apply if you are displaying the gun.  Carrying concealed and making no threatening acts is not grounds for removing self defense.  Whether following is a threatening act or not really depends on how close and we don't have that information.  I would question even that myself.  If a guy lives two doors further down from me and happens to be walking down the same street on the way home, there is really no grounds to consider him a threat.  Also, since you want to defer to the "tape", didn't Martin try to escape before Zimmerman started following him on foot? 

If you want to question someone's motives:  Why didn't Martin just go back to the house he was staying at?  Most especially if he felt threatened by Zimmerman.  From what I remember of the map of the complex, he wasn't that far away.  

[T.O.M.]

Let's throw a twist iin this whole  thing.... If George was a cop, and he saw Treyvon walking in the rain with  his hood up, who here would  believe that George would have reasonable suspicion for a Terry-type stop?  Not me.  I don'tunderstand where walking in  the rain and dark with a hood up makes one a suspicious person.

And duxking between houses?  I've done  that once or twice when I believed I was  being followed...

[Perd Hapley]

looking vaguely like someone from the megan's law website

What in the deuce does that mean? I looked up "Megan's Law," and it apparently means that Z (according to you) looks like a sex offender. I have no idea how you conclude that Z fits what you apparently believe to be a widely-known visual profile of a sex offender. However that works, could you explain how your "He looked like a sex offender" theory is more believable than the "guys who cover their faces when approached are suspicious" theory?

[Perd Hapley]

Let's throw a twist iin this whole  thing.... If George was a cop, and he saw Treyvon walking in the rain with  his hood up, who here would  believe that George would have reasonable suspicion for a Terry-type stop?  Not me. 

Is anybody saying that Zimmerman was a) Terry-stopping Martin, and b) justified in doing so?

[De Selby]

I don't agree that following (not chasing) Martin was a bad decision.  Primarily because I don't know how close he was, how far he followed him, how fast he was going, or really anything else about the situation because that would be assumption on my part (and anyone else's).  He could have just walked down a short distance to see if he could see where he went.  We don't know those facts.  The reason everyone thinks it was a bad call is partly hindsight on the whole affair and partly self defense as his going on foot exposed him to attack.  If he had stayed in the car, there would be less opportunity for people to question his motives.  The only information we have beyond the tail end of the 911 call is that statements made by him or his father saying he stopped, headed back to the car, and was jumped.  I have seen no information that proves that is incorrect.

As for your comments about following someone while armed, IMO, that should only apply if you are displaying the gun.  Carrying concealed and making no threatening acts is not grounds for removing self defense.  Whether following is a threatening act or not really depends on how close and we don't have that information.  I would question even that myself.  If a guy lives two doors further down from me and happens to be walking down the same street on the way home, there is really no grounds to consider him a threat.  Also, since you want to defer to the "tape", didn't Martin try to escape before Zimmerman started following him on foot? 

If you want to question someone's motives:  Why didn't Martin just go back to the house he was staying at?  Most especially if he felt threatened by Zimmerman.  From what I remember of the map of the complex, he wasn't that far away.  

See, we do know that he at least walked behind a row of houses - that's another proven fact.  George Zimmerman followed a person who ran from him into a dark, rainy walkway between a row of houses and away from any public street.   Yet another bizarre move for an armed person to take, both setting himself up for an ambush and giving the other person every reason to believe there's a risky situation developing.

Carrying concealed and chasing people who try to get away from you, if you could foresee that that person would not want you to get near them, is indeed something that strips you of a self defenc claim.  As well it should - why on earth should we be saying that it's ok to engage in conduct that's likely to create a confrontation when carrying a gun!?

With your question about why Martin didn't go back home, that isn't terribly relevant to the self defence claim.  Maybe trayvon did commit a crime against Zimmerman.   That doesn't mean Zimmerman is in the clear.   Both can be guilty of something in the same case if both contributed to the violence.

[De Selby]

Is anybody saying that Zimmerman was a) Terry-stopping Martin, and b) justified in doing so?

He's pointing out that George's decision to get out of the car and follow wasn't reasonable.  

Again folks, unreasonable conduct while carrying a gun that leads to a shooting?   Time to raid the accounts to feed the land sharks...you'll need an attorney, and probably a serious workout routine to prepare yourself for the big house.

Let me try to make as simple as possible:

Bad decision while armed = negligence.  

Negligence causing death = manslaughter.

Manslaughter conviction = years in jail and unnecessary killing.

If you agree Zimmerman made a bad decision, and that except for that decision, no one would have died, you've got manslaughter staring you in the face.

[roo_ster]

Let's throw a twist iin this whole  thing.... If George was a cop, and he saw Treyvon walking in the rain with  his hood up, who here would  believe that George would have reasonable suspicion for a Terry-type stop?  Not me.  I don'tunderstand where walking in  the rain and dark with a hood up makes one a suspicious person.

And duxking between houses?  I've done  that once or twice when I believed I was  being followed...

Any of my LEO friends would consider that--and the knowledge that the rash of break-ins has been caused by black men not of the neighborhood--enough to tail him and chat him up.  Terry frisk?  No, but definitely worth getting a better look at and talking to.  Especially if he didn't fit with the neighborhood.  An experienced cop who uses his head for more than a hat rack can sniff out shifty characters PDQ.  I've seen it in action and it is quite an interesting display.

Actions, BTW, that are all completely legal for anyone to do. 

[Monkeyleg]

De Selby, you're making a leap from Zimmerman making a bad decision to follow Martin (a point which could be argued) to saying that Zimmerman was negligent and committed manslaughter. That's a huge leap, as there has to be a lot in between the decision to follow and the decision to shoot, and it's that stuff in the middle that we don't know with certainty.

[roo_ster]

He's pointing out that George's decision to get out of the car and follow wasn't reasonable.  

Again folks, unreasonable conduct while carrying a gun that leads to a shooting?   Time to raid the accounts to feed the land sharks...you'll need an attorney, and probably a serious workout routine to prepare yourself for the big house.

Let me try to make as simple as possible:

Bad decision while armed = negligence.  

Negligence causing death = manslaughter.

Manslaughter conviction = years in jail and unnecessary killing.

If you agree Zimmerman made a bad decision, and that except for that decision, no one would have died, you've got manslaughter staring you in the face.

Then throw Obama in the clink.  Folks died in Libya that would not have, if Obama had made another decision.

Also, the driver of the pickup that turned the rider of the motorcycle into road pizza could have chosen to take city streets instead of the highway---manslaughter.  I guess the fact that the rider was speeding, driving recklessly, and doing stunts on his motorcycle doesn't count.

Truly, I wonder where you come up with these notions?

[cordex]

Let's throw a twist iin this whole  thing.... If George was a cop, and he saw Treyvon walking in the rain with  his hood up, who here would  believe that George would have reasonable suspicion for a Terry-type stop?  Not me.  I don'tunderstand where walking in  the rain and dark with a hood up makes one a suspicious person.

If George was a cop and he saw someone he felt was suspicious, he could (and likely would) attempt to approach that person and talk to him.  Not arrest.  Not detain.  Not frisk.  Just ask what's going on, ask where they're going and where they are coming from, fish for potential crimes, try to play stupid to get the person to open up, etc.  They do that kind of thing all the time.  If the person took off running, the police officer would likely pursue.  

I'm not sure what relevance the Terry-type stop has in this cnotext as it is hardly the only way a police officer can have contact with a suspicious person. After making contact with the subject, it might well become a Terry stop depending on the subject's behavior, but that's a different subject altogether.

Of course, all of that is beside the point as George was not a cop.

(Awww, roo_ster beat me to it)

Edit:

We should expect and demand the right to stroll peacefully through our public and private spaces without having to answer to an armed watchman just because the watchman feels like it.

Well, we don't.

[Perd Hapley]

He's pointing out that George's decision to get out of the car and follow wasn't reasonable. 

Again folks, unreasonable conduct while carrying a gun that leads to a shooting?   Time to raid the accounts to feed the land sharks...you'll need an attorney, and probably a serious workout routine to prepare yourself for the big house.

Let me try to make as simple as possible:

Bad decision while armed = negligence. 

Negligence causing death = manslaughter.

That has nothing to do with the question. Following isn't Terry-stopping, is it?

Putting aside the case at hand for a moment, are you positing these principles as the current state of affairs, or as the ideal? Do you believe that carrying a gun should mean that an armed person waives their right to initiate any sort of interaction that has any possibility of becoming a hostile confrontation? Or are you saying that current, negative attitudes toward guns makes this an unfortunate reality?

Or had Zimmerman been unarmed, found a brick during the struggle, and killed Martin with a blow to the head, how would this change your analysis of the case?

[gunsmith]

shooting student/de selby used to say he was in Australia, maybe he is comparing Aussie law with USA law?
Proably based on Blackstones as we are but they do not have gun rights down there and maybe he's confused.

[HankB]

I live in the Austin, TX area. Some parts of Austin have unpleasant panhandlers, who can be a bit . . . persistent.

According to DeSelby's writings, if I'm on foot and some disagreeable panhandler follows me for a bit, I can beat the <expletive> out of him.  If at some point he stops following me to return to his corner, I can then chase him and administer a beat down when I catch up, and the panhandler's only recourse (since he started it all by following me) is to fall to his knees and beg forgiveness.

Is this about right?

And if I do so . . . will the Austin Police Department have the same take on the situation as DeSelby?

[cordex]

According to DeSelby's writings, if I'm on foot and some disagreeable panhandler follows me for a bit, I can beat the <expletive> out of him.  If at some point he stops following me to return to his corner, I can then chase him and administer a beat down when I catch up, and the panhandler's only recourse (since he started it all by following me) is to fall to his knees and beg forgiveness.

No, he's saying that in this case both parties may be guilty of wrongdoing, but since Zimmerman is the only one alive he's the only one that is getting prosecuted.

I'm not agreeing with him, but he's been pretty clear on that.