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

[Perd Hapley]

If merely "leaving a place of safety" is enough to make me an aggressor, I'm never leaving my house again. I can't even walk out to my car without the possibility that someone might walk by.

How can leaving a position of safety even apply, unless there's already some kind of exchange or confrontation going on?

[roo_ster]

zimmerman need to be declared black  then this will be like the other 90% of black kids shot no one will care except his family who can go on tv to talk about him turning his life around. no one will care and the rev's slim fast and pay to play will go away and rainbows and unicorns will return

If only he were running for US Senate in Massachusetts, he could at least calim to be a Cherokee.

[Tallpine]

If merely "leaving a place of safety" is enough to make me an aggressor, I'm never leaving my house again. I can't even walk out to my car without the possibility that someone might walk by.

Welcome to DeSelby's World 

[CNYCacher]

Let me throw this out.  A case I prosecuted.  Sorry I can't link to anything about it, as the case happened around 15 years ago, and the file was sealed and expunged.  Man A goes to Man B's house to settle a dispute.  Because fo Man B's reuptation, he takes a few friends and arms himslef with a utility knife, just in case.  The two exchange words, B charges off of his porch and a fight breaks out.  In the course of the fight, B gets A in a chokehold.  A pulls his knife and slashes the neck and face of A.  Long story short, B survives with over 100 sutures, and A gets indicted for Felonious Assault (knowingly cause serious physical harm/cause physical harm by means of a deadly weapon).  Case goes to trial.  A argues self-defense, testified that he was being choked, only recourse was to pull and use the knife.  I am prosecuting, and I argue that A caused the incident.  He went to B's house, armed and with back-up, and called out B.  Jury acquitted based on self-defense.  In speaking with several jurors, the key point they made was that B was at fault for starting the incident because he left a position of safety and went after A.
Isn't this what we've said that Zimmerman did?  Didn't he leave a position of safety and go after Martin?
one thing you have to remember is that a jury is a strange and unpredictable creature.  There's no telling what it may find to be significant or irrelevent.  If the jury hangs up on the idea that Zimmerman left a safe position and went after Martin, as happened in my case, fine points of law will get thrown out the window and the common sense of those 12 people will rule the day.
All of this talk about engaging and disengaging is fun to discuss, but one key point seems to have been lost along the way.  It is a question of fact for the jury to decide, as it was in my case.  We can debate until the cows come home, and still have no idea what the jury will do. I (and DeSelby) just think Zimmerman is in deep because he left safety and went after Martin.

What you have here is an excellent analogy, although you are reversing the roles.

Your analogy fits perfectly if you recognize that A closely resembles Zimmerman and B closely resembles Martin.

Except that Zimmerman is far less culpable than A because trying to figure out where a shady person went is nowhere near as damning as actually going to someone's house with friends and calling them out.

And Martin is far more culpable than B because attacking someone that you hid from as they are leaving is far more damning than what are likely desperate actions of the guy who was faced with multiple would-be assailants in his front yard.

The roles so clearly match up that quite frankly I am surprised that you reversed them like you did.

[HankB]

The roles so clearly match up that quite frankly I am surprised that you reversed them like you did.

I was thinking that he meant to do so to see if we were paying attention . . .

[gunsmith]

If only he were running for US Senate in Massachusetts, he could at least calim to be a Cherokee.

 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

If only he were running for US Senate in Massachusetts, he could at least calim to be a Cherokee.

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

[MechAg94]

What you have here is an excellent analogy, although you are reversing the roles.

Your analogy fits perfectly if you recognize that A closely resembles Zimmerman and B closely resembles Martin.

Except that Zimmerman is far less culpable than A because trying to figure out where a shady person went is nowhere near as damning as actually going to someone's house with friends and calling them out.

And Martin is far more culpable than B because attacking someone that you hid from as they are leaving is far more damning than what are likely desperate actions of the guy who was faced with multiple would-be assailants in his front yard.

The roles so clearly match up that quite frankly I am surprised that you reversed them like you did.

I had that in mind also.  If Martin had successfully hidden and Zimmerman was heading back to his car, Martin would then be at fault for then attacking Zimmerman after Zimerman was withdrawing. 

However, that is based on Zimmerman's claim that he was jumped while heading back to his car. 

[Perd Hapley]

If merely "leaving a place of safety" is enough to make me an aggressor, I'm never leaving my house again. I can't even walk out to my car without the possibility that someone might walk by.

How can leaving a position of safety even apply, unless there's already some kind of exchange or confrontation going on?

Also, if Zimmerman's leaving a place of safety is negligent enough to bear the blame for a homicide, neighborhood watch organizations had better disband. After all, isn't it their job to wander through their own neighborhoods? At night? Watching for suspicious people?

[cordex]

Also, if Zimmerman's leaving a place of safety is negligent enough to bear the blame for a homicide, neighborhood watch organizations had better disband. After all, isn't it their job to wander through their own neighborhoods? At night? Watching for suspicious people?

Except official neighborhood watch organizations are supposed to be unarmed and rely only on police response.

[Perd Hapley]

Zimmerman called the cops, so again, he was doing what a neighborhood watch is supposed to do.

The relevance of the gun is not apparent. Your thoughts?

[dogmush]

Except official neighborhood watch organizations are supposed to be unarmed [citation needed] and rely only on police response.

Mine has a CCW.  I'm pretty sure the one in the neighborhood I'm moving to next week does as well. (She was printing pretty good when she introduced herself during our home inspection)

[roo_ster]

Except official neighborhood watch organizations are supposed to be unarmed and rely only on police response.

Don;t recall that it ever came up.  FTR, I have a CHL, as do several of my neighbors.

[mtnbkr]

Except official neighborhood watch organizations are supposed to be unarmed and rely only on police response.

When a person in our subdivision was trying to get a neighborhood watch group started, it was specifically stated in the rules that participants were not to be armed and not to engage suspicious persons at all.

Chris

[dogmush]

When a person in our subdivision was trying to get a neighborhood watch group started, it was specifically stated in the rules that participants were not to be armed and not to engage suspicious persons at all.

Chris

It'd be interesting to map those rules by local.  I would bet that if you tried to enforce a disarmament policy down here, you'd soon not have any volunteers.  My current watch doesn't mention weapons at all.*  If you bring one, that's on you.

*I've been to a couple meetings but as we have no HOA around here, or any organization at all really, it's very haphazard.

[T.O.M.]

The reason I posted about my case wasnn't to say "look! Same facts so same outcome."  My reason was to show (1) that leaving a position of safety looks bad to a jury, and (2) to show that you cannot predict what a jury will do.  In my case, the jury ignored the defendant going ared to the victim's home, and held the victim cullable for going out of his home.  Yes the jury may find that Zz's actions were all fine, and throw out charges based on self defense.  But they may also hang up on the fact that Z left safety and went after Martin, and throw out the defense argument.  You just cannot predict what they will hang their hats on. That's why I think Z is in deep and his testimony is really the whole case...

[cordex]

Zimmerman called the cops, so again, he was doing what a neighborhood watch is supposed to do.

The relevance of the gun is not apparent. Your thoughts?

If a given neighborhood watchperson is unarmed and is in Zimmerman's shoes, "leaving a place of safety" results in their getting beat to a pulp which is - according to some - a legitimate end to the situation.  De Selby's point has been that leaving a place of safety while armed is the genesis of Zimmerman's crime.  I'm just pointing out that neighborhood watches specifically fit De Selby's approved scenario.

Mine has a CCW.  I'm pretty sure the one in the neighborhood I'm moving to next week does as well. (She was printing pretty good when she introduced herself during our home inspection)

Don;t recall that it ever came up.  FTR, I have a CHL, as do several of my neighbors.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but a few of the big neighborhood watch organizations released some statements surrounding the Zimmerman/Martin case stating that neighborhood watchpeople are required to be unarmed.  I don't have any personal experience with NW, however.

[cordex]

(1) that leaving a position of safety looks bad to a jury

That makes sense when and if the foreseeable result of leaving a place of safety is violence.  The best evidence I have seen so far does not seem to indicate that at the time Zimmerman left his place of safety he had any reason to expect a physical confrontation.  There's plenty of evidence we haven't seen, though so it is entirely possible my view will change.

(2) to show that you cannot predict what a jury will do.

Truth.

[Tallpine]

Except official neighborhood watch organizations are supposed to be unarmed and rely only on police response.

Well, screw that 

Everyone has a right be armed for self protection.  I carry even on wildland fires, just like if I was out in the woods for any other reason.  If they don't like it then I can just quit volunteering.

[De Selby]

Yet again, we all agree that Zimmerman made a dumb move, yet we can't fathom that he'd be convicted.


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.

Chris's case illustrates that even where there was clearly wrongful conduct by both the parties, a jury won't look kindly on rushing to meet danger.  And why would they?  If you're safe, there's no reason to make yourself unsafe and then cry foul when violence results.


In my view, Zimmerman is fast becoming OJ Simpson for white people.  He's on tape making out the elements of the crime, no sane attorney or self-defence instructor would ever advise a student to do this, yet there are people who absolutely refuse to believe that this is anything other than a set-up.

I just hope no one reading these boards pulls a Zimmerman - that'll be a great news story for sure, some guy explaining to the lead investigator how he was entitled to go after that dead guy based on his forum-informed understanding of self-defense.

[dogmush]

So you agree he'll be acquitted then?

[De Selby]

So you agree he'll be acquitted then?

No, I don't - I don't think he's got the same defense advantages that OJ had.   OJ wasn't on tape talking us through his encounter with his victims. 

[HankB]

. . .  Chris's case illustrates that even where there was clearly wrongful conduct by both the parties, a jury won't look kindly on rushing to meet danger.  And why would they?  If you're safe, there's no reason to make yourself unsafe and then cry foul when violence results. . . .

You do understand that the jury acquitted the person who did not initiate the violence, don't you?

[cordex]

Yet again, we all agree that Zimmerman made a dumb move, yet we can't fathom that he'd be convicted.

He made a dumb move tactically, but dumb tactical moves don't immediately mean they are also illegal moves.

Since we've played with a few scenarios, what's your read on the following?

The setting is the same as the real event.  Zimmerman is in his truck, sees Martin skulking around, stops his truck by the side of the road and calls the cops.  While looking around for a house number he loses sight of Martin.  A minute later after hanging up the phone he hears a thump on the back of his vehicle.  Curious, he gets out to investigate the sound and at this point it follows the same pattern as what we know about the real Zimmerman/Martin brawl and shooting.  That is to say, we don't know what words were exchanged but the evidence shows Martin was winning the fight and Zimmerman was on the ground getting pounded when he fires the shot.

Is this a case of manslaughter too?  In this scenario we have him leaving a place of safety, putting himself in harms way, making a stupid tactical decision (he could drive home first, park in his garage, close the garage door and ask the cops to come clear the house before he got out, after all) and  pretty much everything else, right?

[Perd Hapley]

Chris's case illustrates that even where there was clearly wrongful conduct by both the parties, a jury won't look kindly on rushing to meet danger.  And why would they?  If you're safe, there's no reason to make yourself unsafe and then cry foul when violence results.

"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.