Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Perd Hapley on May 16, 2012, 12:00:09 AM
-
ABC has acquired Z's doctor's findings on the day after the shooting.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-medical-report-sheds-light-injuries-trayvon/story?id=16353532#.T7Mk4cWPYcQ
Also, he was prescribed certain medications prior to the shooting. Supposedly, those may have affected his behavior.
-
No. Anything other than "he was a racisty racist with racist hatred of blacks, that silly cracker" is not acceptable.
-
Lots of media attention, but these records don't address the critical matters for the defence or the prosecution. Being on meds shouldn't tell us about carry worthiness, neither does having wounds tell us whether it was self defence (again, because trayvon martin had a right to self defence too. The critical issue is who first caused a reasonable fear in the other, and the wounds on either person don't necessarily answer that question.)
-
Were his injuries from the fight with Martin or from being thrown under the bus?.....
-
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/autopsy-reveals-travon-martin-had-bloody-knuckles-when-he-died/
WFTV has confirmed that autopsy results show 17-year-old Trayvon Martin had injuries to his knuckles when he died.
The information could support George Zimmerman’s claim that Martin beat him up before Zimmerman shot and killed him.
The autopsy results come as Zimmerman’s attorney, Mark O’Mara continues to go over other evidence in the case.
O’Mara wouldn’t comment on the autopsy evidence, but WFTV legal analyst Bill Sheaffer said it’s better for the defense than it is for the prosecution.
WFTV has learned that the medical examiner found two injuries on Martin’s body: The fatal gunshot wound and broken skin on his knuckles.
Lots of media attention, but these records don't address the critical matters for the defence or the prosecution. Being on meds shouldn't tell us about carry worthiness, neither does having wounds tell us whether it was self defence (again, because trayvon martin had a right to self defence too. The critical issue is who first caused a reasonable fear in the other, and the wounds on either person don't necessarily answer that question.)
Okey-dokey.
GZ is the one being accused. It is up to the accusers to prove he was in the wrong. Got anything that proves GZ started the violence?
Somehow I suspect the absence of such wounds on TM would have elicited a different response from you.
-
Lots of media attention, but these records don't address the critical matters for the defence or the prosecution. Being on meds shouldn't tell us about carry worthiness, neither does having wounds tell us whether it was self defence (again, because trayvon martin had a right to self defence too. The critical issue is who first caused a reasonable fear in the other, and the wounds on either person don't necessarily answer that question.)
Except for being consistent with his story.
Zimmerman has to be an absolute genius to have come up with a story so quickly that is consistent with all the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony.
Obviously he needs to be put away before he kills again, diabolical mastermind that he is.
-
So.
Here's what we have:
Two people have fought. One was unarmed and the other was armed.
Thereafter, the unarmed man is dead and the armed man is seriously injured.
There is no detailed evidence as to who started it.
In this situation, is it even possible to convict the survivor?
-
So.
Here's what we have:
Two people have fought. One was unarmed and the other was armed.
Thereafter, the unarmed man is dead and the armed man is seriously injured.
There is no detailed evidence as to who started it.
In this situation, is it even possible to convict the survivor?
Oh it's possible. Just wait.
-
In this situation, is it even possible to convict the survivor?
An excellent question. The prosecution has to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the crime he stands accused of. Based on the current public record, this is going to be very difficult; unless credible evidence - no inference, not extrapolation, but actual EVIDENCE - comes to light that proves Zimmerman initiated violence, competent representation ought to result in acquittal. ("Competent representation" includes jury selection - if the jury pool is comprised of Al Sharpton fans, Zimmerman is toast.)
Zimmerman's story (as reported in the news) seems to be consistent with the physical evidence; if a couple of months of local, state, and Federal law enforcement investigation in full CSI mode haven't blown it out of the water, it's unlikely to be a spur-of-the-moment fabrication from a guy with a broken nose and lacerated scalp, not to mention the adrenaline dump from shooting someone who was beating the cr@p out of him . . . a beating that was witnessed by a third party.
Given the overall, well, dumbness of getting out of his car to follow a suspicious character, does anyone really think Zimmerman is enough of a genius to fabricate a consistent story on the fly?
The dynamics of the debate are interesting - while some have already decided he's the worst type of hateful, racist murderer, the "other" generally isn't saying Zimmerman is an innocent man, they're mostly saying "Let's see what the actual EVIDENCE says." And right now, the EVIDENCE we know of doesn't erase reasonable doubt.
And one last thought: have the autopsy results of Martin been made public yet, specifically the results of drug/tox screening?
-
Lots of media attention, but these records don't address the critical matters for the defence or the prosecution. Being on meds shouldn't tell us about carry worthiness, neither does having wounds tell us whether it was self defence (again, because trayvon martin had a right to self defence too. The critical issue is who first caused a reasonable fear in the other, and the wounds on either person don't necessarily answer that question.)
Snort!
Looking at Martin's injuries, and then at Z's, it certainly supports Z's version of the events.
The last time that I checked, being followed for a short time breaks no laws.
Maybe Z profiled Martin - so what?
Maybe Z followed Martin for a short time - so what?
Maybe Martin's dress, stature, walk, and ambience projected a gang-banger attitude.
Maybe Martin deserved the scrutiny.
Maybe Z was following Martin, hoping that Martin would just leave after getting his attention.
Maybe Martin jumped Z first - being followed is no reason for first blood, nor for physical provocation.
Wounds absolutely indicate physical altercation details, and both are consistent with Martin physically assaulting Z, and Z defending himself.
-
At the moment the question is less "Was Zimmerman getting his butt handed to him when he shot Martin?" and more "Did anything Zimmerman do in initiating the contact justify Martin beating the crap out of Zimmerman?"
I'm leaning toward no, but I know there are many who have argued that the mere act of approaching and verbally challenging Martin was legally sufficient cause for Martin to go into kill mode.
-
I'm leaning toward no, but I know there are many who have argued that the mere act of approaching and verbally challenging Martin was legally sufficient cause for Martin to go into kill mode.
I've read this attitude in comments on nearly every article in this case. I wish I could say it surprised me.
-
I don't know what Florida law is with respect to self-defense, but here in Ohio, self-defense is an affirmative defense. I've prosecuted these kinds of cases. In essence, what the defense has to do is say, meaning that Z would have to say "Yep, I intentionall shot him, but there's a justification." It then becomes the burden of the defendant to prove that the shooting was justified. That's where this case will get interesting, assuming that the defense chooses this strategy. Why? That's where all of the crap about who did what first will come out.
In my opinion, under Ohio law (again, don't know Florida law), there's one key issue...in Ohio, the person claiming self-defense must prove that he was not responsible for creting the situation in which it became necessary for the deadly force to be used. Classic example from the past was a man who broke into a house, aremed with a handgun. The homeowner finds the crime going on, and comes at the burglar with a bat. Burglar shot and killed the homeowner. At trial, he argued that he reasonably feared for his life and only fired to protect himself. Because he created the situation b y breaking into the house, the justification failed. If Florida law is like this, Z has a problem, in that he created the situation by following T in his car, getting out of the car, and pursuing T between houses. And, this testimony will be the key point when the prosecutor can play Perry Mason during Z's testimony (and he will have to testify if he's going to claim self-defense). When he says that he was afraid for his life, the prosecutor will say "at what point, Mr. Z? When you followed him in your vehicle, or when you left your vehicle and chased T on foot? Or was it when you had him cornered, and the boy saw no choice but to fight back against someone he believed was out to attack him? If you were so afraid, why did you ignore the directions of the police dispatcher and chase this boy?" If it gets to that point, that is where Z will lose. Yes, the Stand Your Ground law may say that you don't have to retreat, but it isn't a license to engage in a pursuit.
-
Quote from: cordex on Today at 11:02:39 PM
I'm leaning toward no, but I know there are many who have argued that the mere act of approaching and verbally challenging Martin was legally sufficient cause for Martin to go into kill mode.
I've read this attitude in comments on nearly every article in this case. I wish I could say it surprised me.
If the deliberate approach of an unwelcome stranger is ever judged to be a legitimate reason to go into kill mode . . . Austin, TX (and many other cities) will shortly thereafter experience a sharp rise in panhandler and vagrant mortality.
. . . Or was it when you had him cornered, and the boy saw no choice but to fight back against someone he believed was out to attack him? If you were so afraid, why did you ignore the directions of the police dispatcher and chase this boy?" . . .
Wouldn't the prosecution have to show that Zimmerman did corner Martin, and that he did continue following Martin after the 911 call ended, rather than breaking it off and heading back to his car as he claims? (Wouldn't the location of the witnessed beat-down support this claim?)
IANAL, but it seems to me that if it can be shown that Zimmerman cornered/assaulted/illegally detained Martin, Zimmerman is toast. But I haven't seen evidence in the news that this is the case.
-
Wouldn't the prosecution have to show that Zimmerman did corner Martin, and that he did continue following Martin after the 911 call ended, rather than breaking it off and heading back to his car as he claims? (Wouldn't the location of the witnessed beat-down support this claim?)
To be honest, I don't know, because I don't know Florida law. It may come down to a question of law for the judge, or a question of fact for the jury, which is a determination of when "the incident" occurred. In my scenario (the burglary), it started when the break in took place. Here Z will argue that there was no incidenty until he got attacked, and the Prosecution will argue that it started when Z got out of the car and started pursuing T. If this was Ohio, that would be a question of law for the jury to decide.
What's key here (at least under Ohio law) is that Z will have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was justified in pulling the trigger and did nothing to cause the incident to occur.
-
What's key here (at least under Ohio law) is that Z will have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was justified in pulling the trigger and did nothing to cause the incident to occur.
I realize that this is the law, so I'm not criticizing you, just the law. (And I hate that I have to state this.)
But that's stupid. If I walk up to and ask someone to stop who is causing a disturbance and they assault me with such force that I fear for my life, under Ohio law, I would be charged and convicted of a crime because I "caused the incident to occur?"
-
I don't know what Florida law is with respect to self-defense, but here in Ohio, self-defense is an affirmative defense. I've prosecuted these kinds of cases. In essence, what the defense has to do is say, meaning that Z would have to say "Yep, I intentionall shot him, but there's a justification." It then becomes the burden of the defendant to prove that the shooting was justified. That's where this case will get interesting, assuming that the defense chooses this strategy. Why? That's where all of the crap about who did what first will come out.
In my opinion, under Ohio law (again, don't know Florida law), there's one key issue...in Ohio, the person claiming self-defense must prove that he was not responsible for creting the situation in which it became necessary for the deadly force to be used. Classic example from the past was a man who broke into a house, aremed with a handgun. The homeowner finds the crime going on, and comes at the burglar with a bat. Burglar shot and killed the homeowner. At trial, he argued that he reasonably feared for his life and only fired to protect himself. Because he created the situation b y breaking into the house, the justification failed. If Florida law is like this, Z has a problem, in that he created the situation by following T in his car, getting out of the car, and pursuing T between houses. And, this testimony will be the key point when the prosecutor can play Perry Mason during Z's testimony (and he will have to testify if he's going to claim self-defense). When he says that he was afraid for his life, the prosecutor will say "at what point, Mr. Z? When you followed him in your vehicle, or when you left your vehicle and chased T on foot? Or was it when you had him cornered, and the boy saw no choice but to fight back against someone he believed was out to attack him? If you were so afraid, why did you ignore the directions of the police dispatcher and chase this boy?" If it gets to that point, that is where Z will lose. Yes, the Stand Your Ground law may say that you don't have to retreat, but it isn't a license to engage in a pursuit.
To be honest, I don't know, because I don't know Florida law. It may come down to a question of law for the judge, or a question of fact for the jury, which is a determination of when "the incident" occurred. In my scenario (the burglary), it started when the break in took place. Here Z will argue that there was no incidenty until he got attacked, and the Prosecution will argue that it started when Z got out of the car and started pursuing T. If this was Ohio, that would be a question of law for the jury to decide.
What's key here (at least under Ohio law) is that Z will have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was justified in pulling the trigger and did nothing to cause the incident to occur.
That seems to be the exact opposite of the way it ought to be.
IOW:
1. All homicide ought not be a crime, most especially cases of self-defense.
2. The state ought to have to prove that it was not self-defense, not the other way around.
It seems the law is tilted in favor of both the state and low-lifes, leaving decent folk to hang in the wind.
I realize that this is the law, so I'm not criticizing you, just the law. (And I hate that I have to state this.)
But that's stupid. If I walk up to and ask someone to stop who is causing a disturbance and they assault me with such force that I fear for my life, under Ohio law, I would be charged and convicted of a crime because I "caused the incident to occur?"
This.
-
Quoted from Makattak: "I realize that this is the law, so I'm not criticizing you, just the law. (And I hate that I have to state this.)"
No offense taken in the least, my friend. No worries. I often criticize the law. =D
As to the point you and Roo_ster make, I think I may have spoken poorly, so to speak, with respect to "causing the incident." If you as a citizen are doing nothing more than minding your own business, and let's say you bump into someone walking down the street. The person then attacks you. You did not start this incident, as your actions were not provocative. You committed no criminal act, threatening act, or something that would cause a reasonable person to react violently. Were you acting legally when you asked the person to stop? Probably depends on how you did it. Assuming you followed the P in APS, you did not start the incident, as it had not yet been a criminal incident yet. Going back to my burglary, the rationale for the decision was that the shooter claiming self defense was in the middle of an ongoing criminal/wrongful act. He was not acting legally at all in the situation.
That's why I believe that Z is in trouble. Well, one of several reasons. But, if Florida law is similar to Ohio law, the jury may decide that when he got out of his car to follow T, that point in time was when the incident began, so it was Z's fault. The jury may say that Z had no reason to get out of the car and follow T, especially since he was told not to by the dispatcher, so they may find him to be at fault for starting the incident, nullifying his claim of justification for the shooting.
Frankly, the biggest lesson I take from all of this is, as we often say around here, we are not the police. The weapons we carry are for the protection of ourselves and our families. We don't investigate suspicious people, especially on other person's property. We call the cops and wait in a safe place. Had Z done this, there would be no case to discuss.
-
Quoted from Makattak: "I realize that this is the law, so I'm not criticizing you, just the law. (And I hate that I have to state this.)"
No offense taken in the least, my friend. No worries. I often criticize the law. =D
As to the point you and Roo_ster make, I think I may have spoken poorly, so to speak, with respect to "causing the incident." If you as a citizen are doing nothing more than minding your own business, and let's say you bump into someone walking down the street. The person then attacks you. You did not start this incident, as your actions were not provocative. You committed no criminal act, threatening act, or something that would cause a reasonable person to react violently. Were you acting legally when you asked the person to stop? Probably depends on how you did it. Assuming you followed the P in APS, you did not start the incident, as it had not yet been a criminal incident yet. Going back to my burglary, the rationale for the decision was that the shooter claiming self defense was in the middle of an ongoing criminal/wrongful act. He was not acting legally at all in the situation.
That's why I believe that Z is in trouble. Well, one of several reasons. But, if Florida law is similar to Ohio law, the jury may decide that when he got out of his car to follow T, that point in time was when the incident began, so it was Z's fault. The jury may say that Z had no reason to get out of the car and follow T, especially since he was told not to by the dispatcher, so they may find him to be at fault for starting the incident, nullifying his claim of justification for the shooting.
Frankly, the biggest lesson I take from all of this is, as we often say around here, we are not the police. The weapons we carry are for the protection of ourselves and our families. We don't investigate suspicious people, especially on other person's property. We call the cops and wait in a safe place. Had Z done this, there would be no case to discuss.
The problem with your analysis is that getting out of the car is as innocuous as approaching someone to ask them to stop causing a disturbance.
ANYTHING barring a violent or aggressive approach (i.e. running at someone and screaming obscenities or threats or crazy things at them) is the equivalent to me of asking someone to cease causing a disturbance.
Should Zimmerman have gotten out of the car? In hindsight, we can clearly say it was more costly to him to do so than to sit in the car.
Without the benefit of hindsight, I would be hard-pressed to fault him for wanting to keep an eye on someone he thought was acting suspicious so that the police could investigate him.
-
That seems to be the exact opposite of the way it ought to be.
IOW:
1. All homicide ought not be a crime, most especially cases of self-defense.
2. The state ought to have to prove that it was not self-defense, not the other way around.
It seems the law is tilted in favor of both the state and low-lifes, leaving decent folk to hang in the wind.
Roo_ster, frankly I think that the law has to be this way. We as a society hold life to be sacred (excluding abortion, the death penalty, and other issues I don't want to debate here.) And we believe that those who take a life without justification should be punished. So, we start from the point that homicide is wrong. But, we (especially here on APS) believe in the right to self defense. So, how do we punish killers but still allow the use of dealy force to protect one's own life? You use the affirmative defense. So, as an accused, you tell the jury "Yes, I took his life, but I had a good reason to do so." And, the jury will hear the facts and decide if your justification was valid.
The whole "not responsible for starting the affray" part of self-defense law came out of situations, like the burglary I used as an example, where criminals in the course of their criminal act, were taking the life of the victim but then claiming justification as an affirmative defense. In other words, yes, I was raping your daughter, but you came at me with a knife, so I shot you to save my life against your deadly attack. I reasonably believed that you were going to seriously injur or kill him. Without the requirement of showing that the killer was not at fault in creating the situation, the law would have allowed criminals to kill in the course of their criminal acts and legally claim self-defense.
AS an armed citizen, so long as you are in a position of not engaging in criminal behavior, or frankly dumb behavior, you can successfully argue self defense time and again. Z made a bad choice to leave his car and chase the bad guy. What that did was give the jury a factual determination to make as to when the situation started, and if the chain of events was somehow the direct result of Z's actions, and that those actions were not legal.
In a clear cut situation, this discussion would be easy. Like the homeowner in bed who shoots and kills an armed intruder. Obviously, the home owner did nothing wrong to start the incident, so the shooting would be clearly justified. But this case is far from clear. Lawyers have a saying, that bad cases make bad law. This is a bad case, and I hope and pray that it doesn't creat bad law for us all.
-
The problem with your analysis is that getting out of the car is as innocuous as approaching someone to ask them to stop causing a disturbance.
ANYTHING barring a violent or aggressive approach (i.e. running at someone and screaming obscenities or threats or crazy things at them) is the equivalent to me of asking someone to cease causing a disturbance.
Should Zimmerman have gotten out of the car? In hindsight, we can clearly say it was more costly to him to do so than to sit in the car.
Without the benefit of hindsight, I would be hard-pressed to fault him for wanting to keep an eye on someone he thought was acting suspicious so that the police could investigate him.
And here is where it will become a factual issue for the jury to decide. Getting out of the car is innocuous. I agree. But getting out of the car and following/chasing someone for no apparent legally justified reason may get Z jammed up with the jury. The jury may see no problem with Z getting out of his car and following T to see what was going on. BUt, they could also see Z's act as threatening/menacing, and use that as the starting point for the situation.
I guess my point here is that, as armed citizens, we need to be aware that our actions leading up to a shooting will be reviewed as much as the circumstances of the actual shooting. We need to remember that a jury will be looking to see if we are at fault for improperly creating a situation that led to the use of deadly force, and avoid giving the jury to find that the entire situation was our fault.
-
I think we need to make a clarification here. I keep hearing the terms following and chasing being used interchangeably. I believe that those terms imply significantly different actions.
If Zimmerman was following Martin, I see very little wrong with his actions. Following someone is not what I would consider an aggressive act. Even if Zimmerman was running while following him. Merely following someone should not lead a reasonable person to fear for their lives/safety absent some other action or indication.
The difference I see is in the intent of the act. Chasing someone I read as an aggressive act that would lead to a reasonable fear for their safety in the person being chased.
If Martin was so afraid of Zimmerman, why didn't he call the police? He had a cell phone.
Furthermore, if Zimmerman's account is accurate, then I see two separate events, even if you consider Zimmerman's following of Martin as "aggressive" enough to justify Martin "defending himself." Zimmerman's account is that after he lost Martin, he was returning to his vehicle to wait for police. Zimmerman was no longer actively following or chasing Martin. Martin then approached Zimmerman and without apparent further provocation, attacked Zimmerman. Remember, this is the man he was so afraid of that he feared for his safety. EVEN IF Zimmerman's initial acts started the whole chain of events rolling, it appears that there is a separation of the whole event into two separate events.
-
I have to agree with AmbulanceDriver. I just don't see the act of following as threatening. I haven't seen any facts that state how close to Martin he ever got, so I can't assume it was real close. I do see what Chris is saying though. It all depends on how to Jury sees this.
Some of these facts that we are talking about are also facts that come from Zimmerman. If he doesn't take the stand as a witness for himself, what other source of facts does the jury have to go on?
-
I think we need to make a clarification here. I keep hearing the terms following and chasing being used interchangeably. I believe that those terms imply significantly different actions.
If Zimmerman was following Martin, I see very little wrong with his actions. Following someone is not what I would consider an aggressive act. Even if Zimmerman was running while following him. Merely following someone should not lead a reasonable person to fear for their lives/safety absent some other action or indication.
The difference I see is in the intent of the act. Chasing someone I read as an aggressive act that would lead to a reasonable fear for their safety in the person being chased.
If Martin was so afraid of Zimmerman, why didn't he call the police? He had a cell phone.
Furthermore, if Zimmerman's account is accurate, then I see two separate events, even if you consider Zimmerman's following of Martin as "aggressive" enough to justify Martin "defending himself." Zimmerman's account is that after he lost Martin, he was returning to his vehicle to wait for police. Zimmerman was no longer actively following or chasing Martin. Martin then approached Zimmerman and without apparent further provocation, attacked Zimmerman. Remember, this is the man he was so afraid of that he feared for his safety. EVEN IF Zimmerman's initial acts started the whole chain of events rolling, it appears that there is a separation of the whole event into two separate events.
I agree on the following/chasing point. they are very different words with different implications, and I'm sure the prosecutor will say chase while the defense says follow. which is right, I don't know.
Second, ambulancedriver, i think you bring up a good point. If T was afraid of Z, why initiate the assault? I wish I could answer that one, but I've seen people do very strage things.
My point throughout is I have no idea where thr truth lies in this case, but there are valuable lessons to learn. And, I do have a fear that the backlash from this case may impact us all, and not in a good way.
-
I have to agree with AmbulanceDriver. I just don't see the act of following as threatening. I haven't seen any facts that state how close to Martin he ever got, so I can't assume it was real close. I do see what Chris is saying though. It all depends on how to Jury sees this.
Some of these facts that we are talking about are also facts that come from Zimmerman. If he doesn't take the stand as a witness for himself, what other source of facts does the jury have to go on?
I've never heard of a successful claim of self defense during a homicide trial that didn't involve the defendant testifying. He may have no choice...
-
I have to agree with AmbulanceDriver. I just don't see the act of following as threatening. I haven't seen any facts that state how close to Martin he ever got, so I can't assume it was real close. I do see what Chris is saying though. It all depends on how to Jury sees this.
Some of these facts that we are talking about are also facts that come from Zimmerman. If he doesn't take the stand as a witness for himself, what other source of facts does the jury have to go on?
This exactly mirrors my thoughts as well.
Z had better take the stand, as everything else is opinion and conjecture.
How the jury weighs his testimony, hopefully without prejudice, seems to be the key issue.
-
If Zimmerman tells his story and it matches what evidence can be verified - for example, where the eyewitness saw him getting pummelled - and can convincingly show he actually was on the way back to his car, having stopped following Martin, he ought to be acquitted. (I sort of picture an overhead map view with a timeline, with the locations of the path he drove his car along, where he walked after getting out, where he parked his car, where the eyewitness saw him, etc. all marked, referencing the investigator's notes, with a narrative to match his statement from the night of the incident.)
On the other hand, if the verifiable evidence doesn't match his story, he has a big problem.
-
Chris is making the point I've tried to about this - there is a vital lesson for all gun owners here, which is that it's important not to give chase when you have no reason to do so.
It's also possible, folks, for BOTH parties to be guilty of a crime in a scenario like this one. Even proving Trayvon Martin committed a crime doesn't necessarily make out the defence.
The audio tapes of Zimmerman chasing a person while fully acknowledging that the person is running away are indeed evidence, too. It's not like there's no hint of Zimmerman doing anything wrong here. He belongs before a jury.
-
De Selby, again. What evidence is there that he was CHASING Martin? Not supposition, guessing, or divination from chicken entrails, but actual PROOF? Yes, on the tapes he's asked if he was following Martin. He answered yes, at which point the 911 operator tells him they don't need him to do that. To which Zimmerman replies, "OK. " What evidence do you have that he continued following Martin, or that he was ever chasing Martin. Because there's a difference between following and chasing.
And if Martin was so scared of Zimmerman, why didn't he call 911 himself as opposed to assaulting Zimmerman?
-
De Selby, again. What evidence is there that he was CHASING Martin? Not supposition, guessing, or divination from chicken entrails, but actual PROOF? Yes, on the tapes he's asked if he was following Martin. He answered yes, at which point the 911 operator tells him they don't need him to do that. To which Zimmerman replies, "OK. " What evidence do you have that he continued following Martin, or that he was ever chasing Martin. Because there's a difference between following and chasing.
And if Martin was so scared of Zimmerman, why didn't he call 911 himself as opposed to assaulting Zimmerman?
This is bizarre - he said on tape he was following Martin. You think he stopped. That's great, but Id say the tape where he says he's following him is at least strong evidence that he did. Then there's that witness listening to Martin.
-
This is bizarre - he said on tape he was following Martin. You think he stopped. That's great, but Id say the tape where he says he's following him is at least strong evidence that he did. Then there's that witness listening to Martin.
Hopefully between the dispatch tape, eyewitnesses and interview(s) with Z immediately after the fact, they have a timeline of events pretty well established.
If it is established Z was heading back to his car taking the dispatch admonition not to follow and was jumped it will look better for him than if he was following Martin and then was jumped as he rounded a corner.
-
This is bizarre - he said on tape he was following Martin. You think he stopped. That's great, but Id say the tape where he says he's following him is at least strong evidence that he did. Then there's that witness listening to Martin.
So it appears you now agree he was not CHASING Martin. Thanks for acknowledging that. =D
Following someone is not a crime, nor is it threatening unless you can show he was doing it very very close. There is no evidence to suggest he was following Martin at any distance closer than that necessary to keep him in sight. You don't know if he was any closer than that yet you assume he was. Why? I believe you are assuming it because that is the only way you can blame Zimmerman for the incident.
Now that said, Zimmerman might actually be guilty and have done everything wrong and Martin was the victim. However, I haven't heard of any evidence that points to that.
-
So it appears you now agree he was not CHASING Martin. Thanks for acknowledging that. =D
Following someone is not a crime, nor is it threatening unless you can show he was doing it very very close. There is no evidence to suggest he was following Martin at any distance closer than that necessary to keep him in sight. You don't know if he was any closer than that yet you assume he was. Why? I believe you are assuming it because that is the only way you can blame Zimmerman for the incident.
Now that said, Zimmerman might actually be guilty and have done everything wrong and Martin was the victim. However, I haven't heard of any evidence that points to that.
This is the other bizarre part - zimmerman says on the tape that Martin is running away from him. I'd say that's a fairly good indicator that Martin was afraid of him. Continuing to give chase when someone is trying to get away from you may very well be exactly the sort of thing that deprives you of a self defence claim.
Given that Zimmerman thought he was chasing a drug using burglar, and said so on tape, I'd say it will be mighty tough for him to explain how Martin would have had no reasonable cause to think Zimmerman was out to intercept him. Indeed, stopping trayvon Martin based on the mistaken belief that he was on drugs and a burglar is essentially what Zimmerman said he wanted to do on tape.
-
This is the other bizarre part - zimmerman says on the tape that Martin is running away from him. I'd say that's a fairly good indicator that Martin was afraid of him. Continuing to give chase when someone is trying to get away from you may very well be exactly the sort of thing that deprives you of a self defence claim.
Given that Zimmerman thought he was chasing a drug using burglar, and said so on tape, I'd say it will be mighty tough for him to explain how Martin would have had no reasonable cause to think Zimmerman was out to intercept him. Indeed, stopping trayvon Martin based on the mistaken belief that he was on drugs and a burglar is essentially what Zimmerman said he wanted to do on tape.
It's my understanding that Zimmerman was following, and stopped following when the 911 dispatcher told him to. Also, "following" is a bit different than "chasing". As for self defense, if Zimmerman's story is true, then he didn't defend himself when he was following Martin, but when Martin blindsided Zimmerman after he had returned to his truck. If his story isn't true, this is all going to be a mess to sort out: the broken nose, hair on the back of his head, broken skin on Martin's knuckles, etc.
Since the Zimmerman/Martin episode, there have been thousands of young black males shot and killed in the US. Strange that we don't read about their stories.
-
It's my understanding that Zimmerman was following, and stopped following when the 911 dispatcher told him to. Also, "following" is a bit different than "chasing". As for self defense, if Zimmerman's story is true, then he didn't defend himself when he was following Martin, but when Martin blindsided Zimmerman after he had returned to his truck. If his story isn't true, this is all going to be a mess to sort out: the broken nose, hair on the back of his head, broken skin on Martin's knuckles, etc.
Since the Zimmerman/Martin episode, there have been thousands of young black males shot and killed in the US. Strange that we don't read about their stories.
Thousands?
-
No, not thousands. Hundreds. Thousands of shootings, though, but they don't get this kind of attention.
-
It's my understanding that Zimmerman was following, and stopped following when the 911 dispatcher told him to. Also, "following" is a bit different than "chasing". As for self defense, if Zimmerman's story is true, then he didn't defend himself when he was following Martin, but when Martin blindsided Zimmerman after he had returned to his truck. If his story isn't true, this is all going to be a mess to sort out: the broken nose, hair on the back of his head, broken skin on Martin's knuckles, etc.
Since the Zimmerman/Martin episode, there have been thousands of young black males shot and killed in the US. Strange that we don't read about their stories.
Well, he definitely did not return to his truck - the location of the body is plotted out on numerous photos of the scene. It wasn't on a street. But yeah, chasing someone into a walking path away from the street (Zimmerman said on tape trayvon was running into a cut) could well sustain the charge.
The lesson, as our resident Magistrate and former prosecutor said, is not to go chasing people while armed.
-
Well, he definitely did not return to his truck - the location of the body is plotted out on numerous photos of the scene. It wasn't on a street. But yeah, chasing someone into a walking path away from the street (Zimmerman said on tape trayvon was running into a cut) could well sustain the charge.
The lesson, as our resident Magistrate and former prosecutor said, is not to go chasing people while armed.
As always, I'm impressed by your lawyering.
No one said he "had returned" to his truck. He claimed he was "returning" to his truck. That's the present participle (the -ing is a BIG tip off there) indicating continuing action that had not been completed, not the past perfect (which usually ends in -ed) which indicates a completed action.
Or, put more simply, "returning" doesn't mean he was there yet, but was on the way there.
Second, I note you are still assuming facts not in evidence by conflating "chasing" with "following".
-
Does anyone know of any evidence (not Z's statement, please) that indicates when in the chain of events Z drew his handgun? The reason I ask is that I'm still trying to make sense of the whole thing in my mind, and a question raised here several times is bugging me...why would T jump Z if T was scared, like the recorded phone call could indicate? If T saw the gun in hand, maybe he decided to take a chance and jump Z thinking he may be shot otherwise.
Please note this is all pure speculation on my part. This is a part of the process I would go through when I was involved in investigating violent crimes, trying to visualize how it occurred and make sense of the story as shaped by the evidence.
-
Does anyone know of any evidence (not Z's statement, please) that indicates when in the chain of events Z drew his handgun? The reason I ask is that I'm still trying to make sense of the whole thing in my mind, and a question raised here several times is bugging me...why would T jump Z if T was scared, like the recorded phone call could indicate? If T saw the gun in hand, maybe he decided to take a chance and jump Z thinking he may be shot otherwise.
Please note this is all pure speculation on my part. This is a part of the process I would go through when I was involved in investigating violent crimes, trying to visualize how it occurred and make sense of the story as shaped by the evidence.
Eyewitness testimony (reported) that saw Martin on top of Zimmerman while Zimmerman was screaming help. No mention of a gun visible, either being struggled over or held by Zimmerman, simply a pummelling by Martin.
This indicates the gun was brought out after the assault.
-
Thanks. I'm seriously concerned about the quality of witness statements at this point, just because the nut jobs are starting to come out and claim to have seen things, looking for fame and fortune.
Yeah, I think that the press has already destroyed any chance of the real truth coming out in this case. And, reality speaking, Z's going to be convicted of something. I fear that the aftermath of the Rodney King/L.A. Riots is that the Feds will prosecute for some civil rights violation if nothing else so that Z is convicted, and they can try to keep the peace. It doesn't help when you've got the Reverend Al and others stating that civil unrest is being planned in the event that justice is not done.
Maybe I should go buy some more buckshot...
-
zimmerman says on the tape that Martin is running away from him. I'd say that's a fairly good indicator that Martin was afraid of him.
Guilty conscience ...? ;)
-
This is the other bizarre part - zimmerman says on the tape that Martin is running away from him. I'd say that's a fairly good indicator that Martin was afraid of him.
Tallpine just pointed this bit out too. Afraid of =/= afraid for life or well-being.
Afraid of can also mean "afraid of being caught". When teenage vandals run from police, they are "afraid of" the police, too. Does that fear of the police justify assaulting them should the police catch up to them?
-
As always, I'm impressed by your lawyering.
No one said he "had returned" to his truck.
He was responding to Monkeyleg, who did say that.
-
He was responding to Monkeyleg, who did say that.
Ah, I should have noted that Zimmerman never claimed he "had returned" to his truck.
-
Tallpine just pointed this bit out too. Afraid of =/= afraid for life or well-being.
Afraid of can also mean "afraid of being caught". When teenage vandals run from police, they are "afraid of" the police, too. Does that fear of the police justify assaulting them should the police catch up to them?
Oh come on now, a person walking through a neighborhood and being chased/followed by a random stranger is no different than a criminal fleeing the scene of their crime at the approach of police? That's as disingenuous as some of the things De Selby says.
And for those who contend that being followed by someone is not threatening, let's think this through.
Your teenage daughter is out walking home at night. A man she doesn't know starts slowly following her in a car. When she feels uncomfortable with that, she cuts between houses. The man jumps out of his car and follows her on foot. Being really alarmed now, she starts to run. The man runs after her.
That scenario is what happened, according to both sides of the argument. Are you really saying that the girl in the above scenario would be absolutely crazy and unjustified in feeling threatened? If she turned and confronted the man following/chasing (is there an actual legal definition of that, or is it just a semantic free for all depending on your bias?) would she then be the aggressor intiating the incident? Assuming there isn't one legal code for men and another for women, how do you square that with the position?
Now, I think Z is both an idiot, and probably justified in claiming self defense. But the contortions both sides are taking to make their position is just absurd.
-
That scenario is what happened, according to both sides of the argument.
nope but a good try
-
Oh come on now, a person walking through a neighborhood and being chased/followed by a random stranger is no different than a criminal fleeing the scene of their crime at the approach of police? That's as disingenuous as some of the things De Selby says.
And for those who contend that being followed by someone is not threatening, let's think this through.
Your teenage daughter is out walking home at night. A man she doesn't know starts slowly following her in a car. When she feels uncomfortable with that, she cuts between houses. The man jumps out of his car and follows her on foot. Being really alarmed now, she starts to run. The man runs after her.
That scenario is what happened, according to both sides of the argument. Are you really saying that the girl in the above scenario would be absolutely crazy and unjustified in feeling threatened? If she turned and confronted the man following/chasing (is there an actual legal definition of that, or is it just a semantic free for all depending on your bias?) would she then be the aggressor intiating the incident? Assuming there isn't one legal code for men and another for women, how do you square that with the position?
Now, I think Z is both an idiot, and probably justified in claiming self defense. But the contortions both sides are taking to make their position is just absurd.
I did not say he was the same, I said the fear of being caught is another reason for running. Running does not prove that he was in fear for his safety.
The scenario you just posted is not what happened according to "both sides". According to the recorded phone call, Mr. Martin was acting strangely and cutting between houses BEFORE anyone started "chasing" him.
And if my daughter were actually afraid of her pursuer, I would hope she would use the significant head start she had to run the short distance to where she was staying AND the telephone in her hand to call me if not the police. I will not be teaching here that the correct course of action when you fear for your own safety is to confront the threat without backup.
Just like even if a [supposed] police officer is trying to pull her over on a dark night, I will be teaching her to drive to a well lighted area and confirm with police that it is actually an officer behind her. I will also suggest the she not just pull over to find out who it is that is following her.
-
let's think this through.
Your teenage daughter is out walking home at night. A man she doesn't know starts slowly following her in a car. When she feels uncomfortable with that
Teen girls are always uncomfortable when I follow them.... >:D [popcorn]
-
once I had picked up a really pretty drunk teen age girl in my taxi, when we got close to her house I noticed we were being followed, I asked her if she knew who it was and she said "no" so I picked up my cell and said "I'm gonna keep on going, and I'm calling the police, we'll drive to the police station, you'll be fine"
then she admitted that she had texted her friend to follow us when we got to her neighborhood.
I had a .357 mag revolver on my left and my glock on the right, & I still never considered confronting the car/person following me.
-
Also, he was prescribed certain medications prior to the shooting. Supposedly, those may have affected his behavior.
A benzodiazepine and adderall?
If the prosecutors get anyone at all to buy that those meds contributed to the shooting, they are wizards.
-
Well, now we know why TM had the munchies that night:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-documents-released-shooting-george-zimmerman/story?id=16371852#.T7VsAu1uH8t
-
Well, now we know why TM had the munchies that night:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-documents-released-shooting-george-zimmerman/story?id=16371852#.T7VsAu1uH8t
And now we know why he was beating Zimmerman down.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fe%2Fe2%2FReeferMadnessPoster.jpg&hash=cec6fe6518b42f926f8e1bd33b2eb64c6525bd3d)
-
And when Zimmerman said (during the 911 call) the suspicious guy was walking around like he was on drugs or something, Martin supporters were apoplectic; it was all PROFILING, which Zimmerman had no business doing.
Well, guess what!
[popcorn]
-
Its fairly clear that Zimmermann Assaulted Martin- he took his nose and slammed it into Martin's knuckles causing beaks in the skin. Id be scared for my life too if someone smaller than me were crazy enough to start slamming their face into my hands :O
-
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/marijuanas-risks-are-high-for-pro-athletes-but-so-are-its-benefits-9e3em7t-135603308.html
interesting piece on making it easier to overcome fear
-
I thought MJ makes people more relaxed?
-
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/marijuanas-risks-are-high-for-pro-athletes-but-so-are-its-benefits-9e3em7t-135603308.html
interesting piece on making it easier to overcome fear
Very interesting, thanks! I was a bike messenger in both SF and NYC, smoked a lot of weed in those days - I got hit by cars more then a few times - I guess the weed helped. :cool:
I still recommend not smoking it though.
-
I thought MJ makes people more relaxed?
Alcohol makes people more relaxed, too.
-
I think the real issue is that we have a 16 year old who is using illegal drugs. What does that say about Trevyon's character?
DS, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Either he was pursued, or followed. My assumption when this first happened was that it was a chase. But it sounds a lot less like that was the case.
Also, according to Zimmerman, he had already lost Martin and was on his way back to his car.
Even if he was pursuing Martin. Lets just say it for argument sake.
Can you make a case that assaulting someone who is pursuing you is valid and warranted? I doubt it.
-
Can you make a case that assaulting someone who is pursuing you is valid and warranted? I doubt it.
If you reasonably fear for your life and the only avenue of escape is *forward*. (that wasn't the case here, just sayin')
There's that pesky word "reasonable" again...
-
Can you make a case that assaulting someone who is pursuing you is valid and warranted? I doubt it.
No, but that isn't the issue here. Martin, remember, is not on trial.
The standard in many jurisdictions (I do not know if it is the standard in Florida) that self-defense does not fully apply if you initiated an encounter.
If you walked up to a biker bar and started a conversation with a resident by punching him in the face and then spitting on him, you would swiftly find yourself the target of a beat-down. Is that legally all right to beat up a person for spitting on you and punching you? Likely not, but that doesn't mean you can then shoot the biker who beats you up and get away with it.
-
Except in this case, all information available to us shows Zimmerman did nothing of the sort. Following a suspicious person does not mean you meant to have an encounter. And it certainly doesn't rank anywhere near initiating a fight.
-
No, but that isn't the issue here. Martin, remember, is not on trial.
The standard in many jurisdictions (I do not know if it is the standard in Florida) that self-defense does not fully apply if you initiated an encounter.
If you walked up to a biker bar and started a conversation with a resident by punching him in the face and then spitting on him, you would swiftly find yourself the target of a beat-down. Is that legally all right to beat up a person for spitting on you and punching you? Likely not, but that doesn't mean you can then shoot the biker who beats you up and get away with it.
Big difference between "initiating an encounter" and assault. Your scenario is clearly assault as even without the punch, spitting on someone is assault.
However, EVENIF YOU ASSAULT SOMEONE and "initiate the encounter," in Florida, you can still claim self-defense if your fellow combatant uses such force as to make you fear for your life. Such as, for example, if they cut off your retreat by sitting on top of you and make you fear for your life by smashing your head into a sidewalk or even the ground... you know, just to create some random hypothetical.
-
Except in this case, all information available to us shows Zimmerman did nothing of the sort. Following a suspicious person does not mean you meant to have an encounter. And it certainly doesn't rank anywhere near initiating a fight.
How about chasing that person off the street, in a footpath area behind a bunch of houses, on a dark night?
Mak, you realize there's a witness who saw the two men running, one behind the other, BEFORE the fight started? Also, why was Zimmerman behind the row of houses, away from the street, if all he did was get out to see a street number?
Those facts probably have something to do with the fact that the lead investigator swore probable cause to arrest before the case became a media sensation..
Having read the released file, I can't imagine how his redacted statements will help him. If they're consistent with the witnesses, they're not consistent with being attacked by surprise after stopping to look at a street number. If they're not consistent with the witnesses, well, who is it that has the most to gain by embellishing?
The report also lists Martin sat 5'11", 158 pounds. So smaller than Zimmerman by a significant margin.
Again folks, the important lesson - don't go chasing people in the night when armed. It's insanely reckless, and likely to result in an innocent person dead and another standing before a judge with the "wtf happened!?" face.
-
How about chasing that person off the street, in a footpath area behind a bunch of houses, on a dark night?
So by your estimation it is perfectly reasonable for someone who believes themselves being followed, has not been assaulted or threatened, to set up an ambush and start pummeling the person who was believe was following them without warning?
But keeping an eye on a suspicious person to report an accurate and up to date position is not?
-
So by your estimation it is perfectly reasonable for someone who believes themselves being followed, has not been assaulted or threatened, to set up an ambush and start pummeling the person who was believe was following them without warning?
But keeping an eye on a suspicious person to report an accurate and up to date position is not?
What ambush is this? I pointed out that the one witness on file who saw both men before they started fighting saw them running, one after another. That is not consistent with an ambush scenario, nor with the "do you have a problem?" story, which also conflicts with the witness who was on the phone listening as the fight began. Her testimony is that trayvon said "why are you following me for?", which, incidentally, is consistent with the witness who watched the men before the fight started.
-
there's a witness who saw the two men running,
really? i missed that
-
there's a witness who saw the two men running,
really? i missed that
Yep, in the file Here: http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/17/11748468-court-docs-trayvon-martin-shooting-ultimately-avoidable-by-zimmerman?lite (http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/17/11748468-court-docs-trayvon-martin-shooting-ultimately-avoidable-by-zimmerman?lite) along with other witness statements.
Zimmermans statements to police are not there.
-
oooh the ever reliable MSNBC ;/
yeah, those folks that had to fire folks due to their selective editing, gosh, who would ever remember that?
-
oooh the ever reliable MSNBC ;/
yeah, those folks that had to fire folks due to their selective editing, gosh, who would ever remember that?
? That's a PDF of the police files released. It wasn't written by MSNBC.
Doh, grabbed the wrong link for my post: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Zimmerman_Discovery.pdf (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Zimmerman_Discovery.pdf)
That is the right link.
-
? That's a PDF of the police files released. It wasn't written by MSNBC.
Doh, grabbed the wrong link for my post: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Zimmerman_Discovery.pdf (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Zimmerman_Discovery.pdf)
That is the right link.
Alright, on what page is that witness' testimony found?
-
Alright, on what page is that witness' testimony found?
Page 40.
-
So just lets see if we get this right.
You believe that being chased by someone gives you the right to turn around and initiate an assault on them? Is that right?
-
start looking around page 35 its tuff with names redacted to tell who is who especially bad since one at least witness changed her story
-
The part he's talking about doesn't say who was chasing whom. It indicates the direction they were going, which I suppose could tell us something.
-
So just lets see if we get this right.
You believe that being chased by someone gives you the right to turn around and initiate an assault on them? Is that right?
Seriously, how many times do I have to point out that both parties can be guilty of something in these cases? micro's biker example was on point. If its foreseeable that you'd start a fight with some activity, your right to self defence gets incredibly narrow.
The main point about chasing is that it isn't consistent with earlier statements from the Zimmerman camp - it doesn't fit the "you got a problem?" or "ambush" theories very well. It does fit the theory that Zimmerman kept chasing after he got off the phone, having described trayvon as running away, and it also fits the witness who heard trayvon saying "why are you following me for [sic]".
-
There was a lot of information in the first couple of days that has proven incorrect. I'd like to see a good run down of the known facts and statements. However, I think what we know if somewhat limited.
-
Seriously, how many times do I have to point out that both parties can be guilty of something in these cases? micro's biker example was on point. If its foreseeable that you'd start a fight with some activity, your right to self defence gets incredibly narrow.
The main point about chasing is that it isn't consistent with earlier statements from the Zimmerman camp - it doesn't fit the "you got a problem?" or "ambush" theories very well. It does fit the theory that Zimmerman kept chasing after he got off the phone, having described trayvon as running away, and it also fits the witness who heard trayvon saying "why are you following me for [sic]".
As with most witnesses, this one's story seems to be inconclusive.
The woman claims she saw a "chase" and then says it was just a glance and without her contacts. This is far too little to base a case on.
It could support your "Zimmerman was chasing the poor helpless boy and scaring him to death!"
It could also support a "Zimmerman was jogging back to the car and Martin closed on him quickly." Just a "glance" at such a situation could look like a chase, too.
I'll go back to the witness who saw Martin on top pounding Zimmerman "MMA Style" while Zimmerman screamed for help "at least 38 times." Whatever you believe happened before, this clearly indicates non-mutual combat and a desire to retreat. Unless these facts are false, Zimmerman was justified in shooting the unrelenting assailant.
-
"Any fact, when viewed from an alternate perspective, will yield a completly different interpretation," ~~ Sherlock Holmes.
:facepalm: Holmes was right. [tinfoil]
-
As with most witnesses, this one's story seems to be inconclusive.
The woman claims she saw a "chase" and then says it was just a glance and without her contacts. This is far too little to base a case on.
It could support your "Zimmerman was chasing the poor helpless boy and scaring him to death!"
It could also support a "Zimmerman was jogging back to the car and Martin closed on him quickly." Just a "glance" at such a situation could look like a chase, too.
I'll go back to the witness who saw Martin on top pounding Zimmerman "MMA Style" while Zimmerman screamed for help "at least 38 times." Whatever you believe happened before, this clearly indicates non-mutual combat and a desire to retreat. Unless these facts are false, Zimmerman was justified in shooting the unrelenting assailant.
Did you consider the possibility that trayvon saw the gun, which is why he tried to pound zimmerman? Strange man chasing you at night with a gun ought to be grounds for trying to take it from him. But no, let's not imagine anything the ccwer did could be bad. It must be a frame up because otherwise al sharp ton wouldn't have said anything about it.
-
really?! in your alternate version of reality he saw the gun? and was gonna take it? fascinating
-
really?! in your alternate version of reality he saw the gun? and was gonna take it? fascinating
How is that an alternate reality? It's certainly a possibility, which if true would leave Zimmerman with no option but a plea, but it's also not necessary to make out the crime.
-
How is that an alternate reality? It's certainly a possibility, which if true would leave Zimmerman with no option but a plea, but it's also not necessary to make out the crime.
Objection, your honor; 'assuming facts not in evidence.' "
-
Objection, your honor; 'assuming facts not in evidence.' "
Uh, who is assuming that's what happened?
Edit to clarify: the point there was that even with all of what mak assumed to be true, Zimmerman could still be guilty of a crime. Assuming that Zimmerman was jogging back to his car doesn't make out self defence under the circumstances. For example, if he had his weapon visible at any point in time (say, drawn because he was afraid of being ambushed by a criminal) and trayvon saw that, it would definitely be provocation enough to deprive Zimmerman of a self defense claim.
Even assuming that did not happen, he's still got a problem because he ran after someone who wasn't doing anything wrong or threatening, knowing full well that the person was trying to get away from him.
-
Sorry. Went camping over the weekend with my Cub Scouts. No internet. Anyways, I find it interesting to find that so many are willing to take Z at his word as to what happened. Just an observation. When I was a prosecutor, I never took aanyone's statement as gospel until everything made sense in my mind, start to finish. So from that perspective, I played a lot of "what if" in my mind. I also had the thought that DeSelby had. Z goes into the unknown following a gang banger on drugs. He may have drawn. I imight have. T sees the gun, may feel trapped, so attacks.
And anyone objecting to "facts not in evidence," I'll overrule the objection as there are no facts in evidence as of yet, just press information, and we all know how reliable that can be.
-
Uh, who is assuming that's what happened?
Edit to clarify: the point there was that even with all of what mak assumed to be true, Zimmerman could still be guilty of a crime. Assuming that Zimmerman was jogging back to his car doesn't make out self defence under the circumstances. For example, if he had his weapon visible at any point in time (say, drawn because he was afraid of being ambushed by a criminal) and trayvon saw that, it would definitely be provocation enough to deprive Zimmerman of a self defense claim.
Even assuming that did not happen, he's still got a problem because he ran after someone who wasn't doing anything wrong or threatening, knowing full well that the person was trying to get away from him.
YOU were assuming.
Did you consider the possibility that trayvon saw the gun, which is why he tried to pound zimmerman?
Is there any evidence Trayvon saw the gun? I don't think so. This may pass muster on an internet forum but unless there's a reason to substantiate it, the question would be deemed too speculative to be allowed in court.
Moreover, if I was just passin' through and minding my own business and someone was ..."apparantly" following me and had a gun out, the last thing in the world I would do is "ambush" him or confront him. That sounds like a crazy thing to do.
-
And anyone objecting to "facts not in evidence," I'll overrule the objection as there are no facts in evidence as of yet, just press information, and we all know how reliable that can be.
Aw, c'mon. People were feeling pretty lawyerly using the phrase "facts not in evidence". ;)
-
And anyone objecting to "facts not in evidence," I'll overrule the objection as there are no facts in evidence as of yet, just press information, and we all know how reliable that can be.
:angel:
I was using the term rhetorically.
Besides, it makes me feel like Perry Mason, one of my childhood heroes. [tinfoil]
Since O.J. Simpson was found "not guilty" can we assume courts have only a slightly better record of getting things right? ;)
-
Did you consider the possibility that trayvon saw the gun, which is why he tried to pound zimmerman? Strange man chasing you at night with a gun ought to be grounds for trying to take it from him. But no, let's not imagine anything the ccwer did could be bad. It must be a frame up because otherwise al sharp ton wouldn't have said anything about it.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F29.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lols30rUm71qeiwtao1_500.gif&hash=75416939c25d6434175c1fc03c68c1f58ff4e0c2)
-
Well, let's see, the prosecutor/judicial officer here sees something funny, the lead investigator swore probable cause before the papers knew this was a case, and now the only possible explanation some people see for the charges is "politix!!!!!".
Let's all say it together folks: chasing people who aren't doing anything while armed is insane, and will (should, even) lead to charges. Playing the cop role when you're a junior college criminology student isn't just lame, it's dangerous, to your freedom and to the lives of others.
-
Well, let's see, the prosecutor/judicial officer here sees something funny, the lead investigator swore probable cause before the papers knew this was a case, and now the only possible explanation some people see for the charges is "politix!!!!!".
Let's all say it together folks: chasing people who aren't doing anything while armed is insane, and will (should, even) lead to charges. Playing the cop role when you're a junior college criminology student isn't just lame, it's dangerous, to your freedom and to the lives of others.
And, again, conflating following with "chasing."
You are assuming a fact not conceded. Everyone concedes Mr. Zimmerman followed Mr. Martin. The disagreement comes in (1) the length of time of the following and (2) that the following led to "chasing". Those are disputed (and unknown!) data.
You build your entire argument upon those disputed facts.
-
Did you consider the possibility that trayvon saw the gun, which is why he tried to pound zimmerman?
And Zimmerman with a gun already in his hand would have shot Martin before he landed a punch.
-
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/os-george-zimmerman-key-witnesses-20120522,0,4935982,full.story
A fourth abandoned her initial story, that she saw one person chasing another. Now, she says, she saw a single figure running.
I think this is the witness De Selby is referring to about chasing. She didn't have contacts in and just seems like a witness who saw little or nothing.
As for the other witness stories, I am not sure if they really hurt Zimmerman or not. I guess it depends on how you are visualizing the events. The one guy saying Zimmerman was on top after the shooting just doesn't seem relavant to me as it was after.
-
:angel:
I was using the term rhetorically.
Besides, it makes me feel like Perry Mason, one of my childhood heroes. [tinfoil]
Sometimes, I wish that real court was more like Perry Mason...
And I appreciate the use of the objection. ;)
-
I would like to ask a question, and I'm being serious. From what I understand, these are the facts known independent of Z's statement:
T was walking down the street, wearing a hood up. Z was following him in his vehicle, and reported to the dispatcher that he was following a suspected gang member who appeared to be under the influence. T ducked between houses. Per his phone call, he tells his girlfriend that he's being followed by some guy, and he's nervous/scared. Z tells dispatcher that he's going to follow T on foot, and is told not to by the dispatcher. Witnesses describe seeing a fight between two males. Some describe the black subject on top, others the white subject. A shot is fired by Z. T died. No one saw the shot fired. Z was taken to the police station, has injuries documented (facial bruising, broken nose?, injury to back of head). Autopsy shows T had bruising on hands (consistent with punching), and trace amounts only of marihuana.
Is this accurate? I'm not going out of my way to keep up with the case. Too much of my own docket to worry about. But, before I make my next argument about something, I want to make sure I know the facts as well as I can (without having to read a bunch on-line).
-
I would like to ask a question, and I'm being serious. From what I understand, these are the facts known independent of Z's statement:
T was walking down the street, wearing a hood up. Z was following him in his vehicle, and reported to the dispatcher that he was following a suspected gang member who appeared to be under the influence. T ducked between houses. Per his phone call, he tells his girlfriend that he's being followed by some guy, and he's nervous/scared. Z tells dispatcher that he's going to follow T on foot, and is told not to by the dispatcher. Witnesses describe seeing a fight between two males. Some describe the black subject on top, others the white subject. A shot is fired by Z. T died. No one saw the shot fired. Z was taken to the police station, has injuries documented (facial bruising, broken nose?, injury to back of head). Autopsy shows T had bruising on hands (consistent with punching), and trace amounts only of marihuana.
Is this accurate? I'm not going out of my way to keep up with the case. Too much of my own docket to worry about. But, before I make my next argument about something, I want to make sure I know the facts as well as I can (without having to read a bunch on-line).
No. You are including unconfirmed reports with known facts.
T was walking down the street, wearing a hood up. Z was following him in his vehicle, and reported to the dispatcher that he was following a suspected gang member youth who appeared to be acting strangely, indicating ciminal intent or being under the influence. T ducked between houses. Per his phone call, he tells his girlfriend that he's being followed by some guy, and he's nervous/scared. That call was not recorded and all we have is Trayvon's girlfriend's word on that. Z tells dispatcher that he's going to follow T on foot T has started running at which point the dispatcher asks where he went. Z gets out of the car to follow and begins breathing harder at which point he is asked if he is following T and replies in the affirmative. He is told not to by the dispatcher. Some witnesses describe seeing a fight between two males. Some describe the black subject on top, others the white subject. You have conflated testimony here. I believe only one witness actually saw a fight and described T as being on top. Other witnesses who saw Z "on top" do not describe a fight but say he was "standing over him.". A shot is fired by Z. T died. No one saw the shot fired. Z was taken to the police station, has injuries documented (facial bruising, broken nose?, injury to back of head). Autopsy shows T had bruising on hands (consistent with punching), and trace amounts only of marihuana.
-
Today's latest news is that the eyewitnesses have dramatically changed their stories.
-
Today's latest news is that the eyewitnesses have dramatically changed their stories.
Social pressure to "fit the narrative". Not surprising.
-
Today's latest news is that the eyewitnesses have dramatically changed their stories.
Does this include the eyewitness that saw T atop Z beating the latter, just before the fatal shot was fired?
Changes in the stories of other witnesses would seem to do more harm to the prosecution's case rather than the defense . . . a matter of witness credibility.
You know, more info is leaking out, and I still don't know - know! - whether Z is innocent or guilty; I suppose that means "reasonable doubt" still prevails right now.
-
Again folks, the important lesson - don't go chasing people in the night when armed.
Whatever the value or specific applicability of your other points, this is absolutely spot on.
-
don't go chasing people in the night when armed
Better to do it unarmed ???
BTW, how come Martin is referred to by his first name while George is referred to by his last name ...? ;/
-
Better to do it unarmed ???
BTW, how come Martin is referred to by his first name while George is referred to by his last name ...? ;/
Isn't Martin the kid's surname, and his first name is Travyon?
As a non-LEO, you shouldn't go chasing people at all, unless you actually witness them committing a serious crime like arson or murder or rape.
-
Isn't Martin the kid's surname, and his first name is Travyon?
Yes, but a certain poster (and some others following that example) is referring to one of the individuals in the incident by his first name and the other by his last name. I can't help but think that there is some sort of intent to make one of the individuals more of a "person" than the other ;/
-
My surname is Sir Jim. Thank you Jethro.
It doesn't matter. The media always shows a smiling picture of one and a court appearance of the other.
jim
-
Better to do it unarmed ???
BTW, how come Martin is referred to by his first name while George is referred to by his last name ...? ;/
Because when people hear "Trayvon," they presume the deceased is black. Zimmerman sounds like a white guy name. It sells much better, don't you know.
Thanks for pointing that out. I thought I had noticed that, too.
-
mat, thanks for editing my fact statement. Problem is that it doesn't help me clarify anything. Stil unsure if it fits justified or not...
-
mat, thanks for editing my fact statement. Problem is that it doesn't help me clarify anything. Stil unsure if it fits justified or not...
I agree that we still don't know a whole lot yet. I think my opinion is more a reaction to the media and others who seem to be trying to hang the guy or find any way they can to justify thinking he is guilty of murder. I haven't seen near enough to prove that to me yet. I guess I tend to side with the underdog.
-
I agree that we still don't know a whole lot yet. I think my opinion is more a reaction to the media and others who seem to be trying to hang the guy or find any way they can to justify thinking he is guilty of murder. I haven't seen near enough to prove that to me yet. I guess I tend to side with the underdog.
Both sides seem to think that their own favorite is the underdog ;/
-
mat, thanks for editing my fact statement. Problem is that it doesn't help me clarify anything. Stil unsure if it fits justified or not...
My own view is that the tapes place the burden on Zimmerman - they presumptively make out a homicide, where one person admitted on tape he was chasing someone else. That someone else wasn't doing anything wrong. Now that he's dead, it's up to Zimmerman to demonstrate why he should be the exception from the normal rule that if you cause a death, you pay the consequences.
This rule about confrontations is an important element of self-defence in civil society. 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. I do expect that CCWers and fellow gun owners will be responsible enough not to chase kids around the neighbourhood, seeking out evil-doers on a hunch.
The gun-board sentiment towards Zimmerman has been mostly favourable from what I can see. That sentiment erodes public confidence in gun owners, as I expect the non-gun owning public considers it their right not to be accosted by armed neighbourhood watchmen for no reason. It thereby erodes the right to self-defence, which is now already under review in Florida because so many people found this shooting and subsequent lack of charges outrageous.
Get-back for the OJ trial, which is regularly mentioned on these threads, is of absolutely no value to anyone. I cannot see how this will end well for gun owners, and to be honest, if we as a community think it's okay to go chasing people with our guns because they "look suspicious", it probably should not end well for us. We don't deserve it.
-
mat, thanks for editing my fact statement. Problem is that it doesn't help me clarify anything. Stil unsure if it fits justified or not...
Join the club.
OTOH, advocating something contrary the the lynch mob is usually a good thing on general principle.
It thereby erodes the right to self-defence, which is now already under review in Florida because so many people found this shooting and subsequent lack of charges outrageous. the usual scumbag race-hustlers went out in force and the lickspittle media lapped it up off of the pavement and vomited it into their reportage.
There you go.
-
Actually, the vast majority of the sentiment I've seen on gun boards (which has even been repeated on this forum more than once) is that Zimmerman was an idiot for getting out of his car, but that other than that we don't have enough information to either clear or convict.
As more information has come out, yes, the sentiment has shifted towards Zimmerman, mostly because the physical evidence that we've seen seems to support his statements.
That being said, don't know *still* means don't know. There's been a lot of supposition, a lot of inference, and a lot of discussion, but don't know really does still mean don't know.
I honestly think that what you're seeing as 'favorable sentiment towards Zimmerman' is a matter of perspective. If you know he's guilty, of course anything away from that view is going to seem favorable towards Zimmerman. If you are of the camp that says, 'let's wait for, you know, actual *evidence*' then the whole "Zimmerman is guilty, fry is arse" sentiment gets a little tiring, because we get tired of saying, "Hey, let's wait for actual EVIDENCE, and let an actual COURT, with an actual JUDGE, and maybe even an actual JURY reach an actual VERDICT.".
-
Because when people hear "Trayvon," they presume the deceased is black. Zimmerman sounds like a white guy name. It sells much better, don't you know.
Thanks for pointing that out. I thought I had noticed that, too.
Technically, 'George' isn't an especially-ethnic name either...
-
That being said, don't know *still* means don't know. There's been a lot of supposition, a lot of inference, and a lot of discussion, but don't know really does still mean don't know.
I honestly think that what you're seeing as 'favorable sentiment towards Zimmerman' is a matter of perspective. If you know he's guilty, of course anything away from that view is going to seem favorable towards Zimmerman. If you are of the camp that says, 'let's wait for, you know, actual *evidence*' then the whole "Zimmerman is guilty, fry is arse" sentiment gets a little tiring, because we get tired of saying, "Hey, let's wait for actual EVIDENCE, and let an actual COURT, with an actual JUDGE, and maybe even an actual JURY reach an actual VERDICT.".
Exactly. For example, when someone posts . . . I expect the non-gun owning public considers it their right not to be accosted by armed neighbourhood watchmen for no reason.
The response is "We don't KNOW that Zimmerman accosted Martin, let's see what the actual evidence says" There's still a gap where we don't KNOW what happened between the end of the 911 call (where the two had NOT interacted yet) and the eyewitness account of Martin beating on Zimmerman - which did not include the beginning of the encounter. The "We don't know" response is neutral - and the pro-Martin contingent is put off by neutrality when they know Martin is an angel who was ruthlessly murdered by a bloodthirsty white Hispanic racist.
Few here have said Zimmerman is A-OK; I've personally written more than once that based on public knowledge to this point, there is plenty of reasonable doubt - which is not the same as a proclamation of innocence. Additional evidence may eventually change that - but it hasn't up to now. If "let's reserve judgement until we KNOW what happened, based on actual evidence rather than extrapolation, assumptions, inferences, or the incendiary comments from the usual suspects" is seen as support for Zimmerman . . . so be it.
-
http://www.chron.com/news/article/Zimmerman-complained-about-Sanford-police-in-2011-3580679.php
More evidence of the danger of that devious mastermind, George Zimmerman.
An ENTIRE YEAR before shooting Trayvon Martin, he was complaining about police favoritism in the beating of a black man by a white boy.
It's obvious he needs to be up for murder 1 given how long he's been preparing the narrative to make him appear not to be racist!
-
And all of this is why APS is the only forum I visit on a semi-daily basis. Fight like hell for five pages, and no one has reorted to name calling (yet). And, bottom line, everyone agrees that George (there, no Z this time. ;) ) made some bad choices along the way which may come back to bite us all in the butt as armed citizens.
It will be interesting as an attorney and magistrate to watch the trial in terms of the arguments made for self defense. A tactic I've seen successfully used is for the defense to put up essentially no argument with the State's case regarding the homicide, and then bury the jury in evidence regarding the justification. It works well if the defense attorney is able to convince the judge that much of the State's evidence should be kept out as irrelevent to the homicide charge.
-
Zimmerman, who claims the Feb. 26 shooting was self-defense, was initially not arrested. But after protests around the country and an investigation by a state prosecutor, he was charged.
I keep hearing this over and over again, like it's true. Am I missing something?
I thought he WAS arrested. And then he was not charged, and then released, but he was still arrested. I mean, I remember seeing video on the news where he had his hands cuffed behind his back, and everyone was trying to see if he had blood on the back of his head. Is that not "being arrested" now? Has the definition of "being arrested" changed, so that if you are eventually released, it never happened? Do police officers cuff you and take you to the station "just to have a chat", and that's not considered being arrested?
-
http://www.chron.com/news/article/Zimmerman-complained-about-Sanford-police-in-2011-3580679.php
More evidence of the danger of that devious mastermind, George Zimmerman.
An ENTIRE YEAR before shooting Trayvon Martin, he was complaining about police favoritism in the beating of a black man by a white boy.
It's obvious he needs to be up for murder 1 given how long he's been preparing the narrative to make him appear not to be racist!
I saw this on CNN this morning. Instead of discussion the inherent importance that Zimmerman fought for justice within the police department, they ran on the narrative they Zimmerman later "changed his story" and supported the department in a later email. They're insinuating that he only supported the department because of the decision not to charge him. It's a disgusting trick used to shift focus onto the most unlikely of possibilities in an effort to maintain the race controversy.
CNN again proving that their despicable behavior regarding this case isn't going away any time soon.
-
http://www.chron.com/news/article/Zimmerman-complained-about-Sanford-police-in-2011-3580679.php
More evidence of the danger of that devious mastermind, George Zimmerman.
An ENTIRE YEAR before shooting Trayvon Martin, he was complaining about police favoritism in the beating of a black man by a white boy.
It's obvious he needs to be up for murder 1 given how long he's been preparing the narrative to make him appear not to be racist!
Yeah, I notice this - some folk really want this to be a race issue, so they can blame it on reverse racism. I don't see that racism has anything to do with whether he committed the crime, which is mostly made out by the tapes.
I'm afraid to ask, but I will: How on earth does the fact that George (No Z) immerman helped black people sometimes mean anything for this case??? He said on tape he thought the kid was suspicious and on drugs. We know what he believed (and we know it was wrong) at the time this whole thing started. I have no idea why we need to demean ourselves to the level of saying "but but but he has black friends!"
-
It works well if the defense attorney is able to convince the judge that much of the State's evidence should be kept out as irrelevent to the homicide charge.
A favorite tactic of mine is to stipulate evidence from the opposing side into evidence along with whatever fact they were going to prove with it anyway. In addition to having a much softer introduction and base fact phraseology, it robs the opposing counsel of their moment and more often than not, they then have no idea what to do. It also helps cement my own side as being the ever reasonable one. Also helps one be on the good side of judges who tend to like things moved along as efficiently as possible.
I also find it amusing to think of being a nice/reasonable guy as a legal tactic. >:D
-
Yeah, I notice this - some folk really want this to be a race issue, so they can blame it on reverse racism. I don't see that racism has anything to do with whether he committed the crime, which is mostly made out by the tapes.
I'm afraid to ask, but I will: How on earth does the fact that George (No Z) immerman helped black people sometimes mean anything for this case??? He said on tape he thought the kid was suspicious and on drugs. We know what he believed (and we know it was wrong) at the time this whole thing started. I have no idea why we need to demean ourselves to the level of saying "but but but he has black friends!"
First, because he wasn't wrong. He said the kid was acting suspiciously and one explanation was that he could be on drugs. Walking around in the dark on an especially cold and rainy night is suspicious. (For reference, when someone uses the word "like" such as is found on the 911 tapes, that is often designating an analogy. "Like he's on drugs or something" doesn't indicate one believes he is on drugs but that is a possible explanation for the behavior.)
Secondly, given that the prosecutor in her charging statement explicitly states that Mr. Zimmerman "profiled" Mr. Martin, I would say that race is clearly an issue here.
-
Secondly, given that the prosecutor in her charging statement explicitly states that Mr. Zimmerman "profiled" Mr. Martin, I would say that race is clearly an issue here.
Also, it is very much at issue since the federales are trying to gin up some sort of civil rights case against GZ.
DS:
Did you miss the endless hours of race-baiting and rabble-rousing done about how a "white" man hunted down and killed a widdle black boy in cold blood?
“Trayvon is martyr, he’s not coming back, he’s a martyr, murdered and martyred,” said [Jesse] Jackson Sunday. “Now we must illuminate the darkness with the light that comes from the martyr.”
Jackson told the Los Angeles Times Friday that “blacks are under attack,” adding that “targeting, arresting, convicting blacks and ultimately killing us is big business.”
“No justice, no peace,” he told the paper.
-
Also, it is very much at issue since the federales are trying to gin up some sort of civil rights case against GZ.
DS:
Did you miss the endless hours of race-baiting and rabble-rousing done about how a "white" man hunted down and killed a widdle black boy in cold blood?
IMHO, the Obama justice department probably hopes that GZ is aquitted. Then, they'll go after him for depriving TM's civil rights. And it'll be all about how they're protecting the oppressed from mean middle class whitey.
-
. . . He said on tape he thought the kid was suspicious and on drugs. We know what he believed (and we know it was wrong) . . .
First, because he wasn't wrong. He said the kid was acting suspiciously and one explanation was that he could be on drugs. Walking around in the dark on an especially cold and rainy night is suspicious. (For reference, when someone uses the word "like" such as is found on the 911 tapes, that is often designating an analogy. "Like he's on drugs or something" doesn't indicate one believes he is on drugs but that is a possible explanation for the behavior.)
Secondly, given that the prosecutor in her charging statement explicitly states that Mr. Zimmerman "profiled" Mr. Martin, I would say that race is clearly an issue here.
As it turns out, autopsy results found drugs in Martin's system, and at the time, he was on suspension from school for a minor drug offense. These facts support the contention that Martin was a druggie. So when Zimmerman said that Martin was "suspicious" and walking around "like he's on drugs" he wasn't wrong at all.
-
As it turns out, autopsy results found drugs in Martin's system, and at the time, he was on suspension from school for a minor drug offense. These facts support the contention that Martin was a druggie. So when Zimmerman said that Martin was "suspicious" and walking around "like he's on drugs" he wasn't wrong at all.
Also, (according to his girlfriend) Martin put his hood up when spotted by Zimmerman - which sounds like suspicious behavior to me.
I must be wierd, because I don't hide my face and run when somebody notices me walking down the street.
-
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.
-
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.
-
scary looking dude
;/
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
Okay, let's modify that a bit to better fit the situation: Let's say you're walking along quickly, and that panhandler yells out from across the street. After you refuse to acknowledge him, he crosses to be closer. You then run away from the street into a row of houses. The bum chases you....and after running from him, you hide in the bushes and spring out as he runs past you (still away from the street, still in the dark row between the houses) and whoop on him.
Actually, yeah, I'm 100 percent certain the Austin PD would have zero case on you. I'd defend myself, having gone to law school in Austin.
Hey gunsmith, I'm an American lawyer.
-
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?
In no respect would it change my analysis - Zimmerman would still be guilty of a crime, irrespective of whether Martin (Travyon, Trayvon Martin, not George, George Zimmerman) was also guilty of a crime.
-
. . . The bum chases you....and after running from him, you hide in the bushes and spring out as he runs past you (still away from the street, still in the dark row between the houses) and whoop on him . . .
Can't I wait until after he stops following me and is on his way back to his corner before I bushwhack him? It would still be his fault then, right?
-
Can't I wait until after he stops following me and is on his way back to his corner before I bushwhack him? It would still be his fault then, right?
Then, as cordex points out, you'd both be guilty of a crime. I'd be happy to send you pictures of his mugshot in jail as a client nicety.
-
Then, as cordex points out, you'd both be guilty of a crime. I'd be happy to send you pictures of his mugshot in jail as a client nicety.
Can you tell me what the crime I'd be guilty of? "Aggravated following"? "Premeditated creepiness?"
-
HankB, I thinkDeSelby has said that Treyvon is guilty of assault, and George is guilty of manslaughter.
My choice of a Terry stop was poor, as there's no evidence that George was going to frisk Treyvon. But, I think that my point in asking the question is along with what DeSelby said, when George left his car, he changed the dynamics of the situation, and that may have taken his actions out of the self-defense category. Again, I don't know Florida law, and I'm not going to spend hours doing the research I have in a career of work as a criminal lawyer in Ohio in the issue of self-defense. For what it's worth, I've no-billed a few cases in my time as a prosecutor on the grounds of self-defense and also defense of others. And I firmly believe in 2A rights. (So, the PM I got questioning why an anti-gun lawyer is on this board promoting an anti 2A adgenda is completely wrong.) I believe that George may not easily prevail, if at all, on his self-defense argument because of the choices he made to leave his position of safety, follow Treyvon into unknown circumstances, and then rely on self-defense when he fired. To be honest, I'm also worried that the injuries he suffered from a bare hand attack may not result in a jury believing that he was reasonably in fear for his life when he fired.
And, again, as an armed citizen, I worry that this incident may cause stupd legislators to enact stupid laws regarding self-defense that will make it worse for those of us who choose to carry a weapon to protect ourselves and our families.
-
HankB, I thinkDeSelby has said that Treyvon is guilty of assault, and George is guilty of manslaughter.
My choice of a Terry stop was poor, as there's no evidence that George was going to frisk Treyvon. But, I think that my point in asking the question is along with what DeSelby said, when George left his car, he changed the dynamics of the situation, and that may have taken his actions out of the self-defense category. Again, I don't know Florida law, and I'm not going to spend hours doing the research I have in a career of work as a criminal lawyer in Ohio in the issue of self-defense. For what it's worth, I've no-billed a few cases in my time as a prosecutor on the grounds of self-defense and also defense of others. And I firmly believe in 2A rights. (So, the PM I got questioning why an anti-gun lawyer is on this board promoting an anti 2A adgenda is completely wrong.) I believe that George may not easily prevail, if at all, on his self-defense argument because of the choices he made to leave his position of safety, follow Treyvon into unknown circumstances, and then rely on self-defense when he fired. To be honest, I'm also worried that the injuries he suffered from a bare hand attack may not result in a jury believing that he was reasonably in fear for his life when he fired.
And, again, as an armed citizen, I worry that this incident may cause stupd legislators to enact stupid laws regarding self-defense that will make it worse for those of us who choose to carry a weapon to protect ourselves and our families.
I've asked this questio before, but your post seems to indicate that citizens have no right of self-defense if the approach any other citizen and "initiate an incident."
Do citizens not have a right to observe or even speak to someone else on the street? No right to ask them what they might be doing in the neighborhood?
-
Then, as cordex points out, you'd both be guilty of a crime. I'd be happy to send you pictures of his mugshot in jail as a client nicety.
Snort.
I can't speak to Florida, but in Texas if you clearly disengage from a conflict even if you started it, and the other party tries to kill you by, oh, I don't know.....bashing your head repeatedly on the sidewalk.....it is an affirmative defense to the use of lethal force.
Is there solid evidence that Gz initiated a confrontation?
Not that I've seen. Anything else is conjecture.
And gz's statement is he was going back to his car after he stopped following Martin.
This may go down as an epic dead horse around here. You sure have a knack for flogging them.
If the Florida statute is written similarly, then you are wrong, counselor.
-
Jamis, I'm pulling this from one of the previous threads that was locked - let me know if you need me to edit it down - I was a little steamed at this point....
Sorry De Selby, but following someone, even chasing someone, whether you are armed or not, is not "an act imminently dangerous to another."
Furthermore, you're twisting the law around to try to fit your preconceived notions. For that law to apply, the act that causes the unlawful killing must be the imminently dangerous act. So if Martin had keeled over and died from being chased, then yes, that law would apply. And that law specifically states "the unlawful killing." Killing someone in self defense is not an unlawful killing.
Now let's look at the second statute you quoted....
The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Let's walk through that, shall we? Hrm... "Without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776".... Wait. Would self defense be lawful justification??? Oh my, it looks like chapter 776 is exactly that, Justifiable Use of Force! Hrm. Let's see what all is in there, shall we??? Oh lookie... 776.012 - Use of force in defense of person. 776.032 - Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.
Oh, here's a good one....
776.041 - Use of force by aggressor. Shall we see what Florida has to say about this??? Even if Zimmerman was the "aggressor"?
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.
Ok. #1 doesn't apply. Zimmerman was not attempting to commit, committing or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony. Strike 1.
#2 - "Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself." - Hmm.. could it be... Maybe *that's* the law you were thinking he broke.... But wait. there's more to be read-
"UNLESS" (my, that's an important word in this case)
"(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" yeah, getting punched to the ground and then having your head slammed into the cement sidewalk would fit that definition "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;" Whoopsie. Zimmerman was under Martin, having his head pounded into the cement. I don't see any reasonable means to escape that danger.... Strike 2.
"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." Let's see. Zimmerman stopped following/chasing Martin. He's walking back to his car. Yup. Withdrew from physical contact... Oh wait. THERE HADN'T EVEN BEEN ANY PHYSICAL CONTACT YET! According to his statement to police, after he started walking back to his car, this exchange occurred:
Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words.
Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose, according to the account he gave police.
from http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager
Wait, what's this? "Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose" oh no! "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." Strike 3, and you're out!
Oh, but guess what, I'm not done yet! "and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide"
Gee, I wonder what fits the definition of excusable homicide??? Oh, that's right, SELF DEFENSE!
Guess again, Counselor.
So again, De Selby, is it your contention that being followed, or if you like, chased by another person put Trayvon Martin in REASONABLE fear of death or serious physical injury? Because my understanding is that is the standard that would justify Martin using deadly physical force.
-
. . . I can't speak to Florida, but in Texas if you clearly disengage from a conflict even if you started it, and the other party tries to kill you by, oh, I don't know.....bashing your head repeatedly on the sidewalk.....it is an affirmative defense to the use of lethal force.
Is there solid evidence that Gz initiated a confrontation?
That's the crux of the matter - so far, I have seen ZERO evidence that Zimmerman initiated any confrontation.
Chris, DeSelby et.al., - IF Zimmerman cornered Martin, assaulted him, or tried to illegally detain him, he would clearly be the aggressor and his claim of self defense wouldn't hold up in court; in such a circumstance I doubt anyone on this board would say otherwise, and most would agree that Zimmerman would and should be convicted; perhaps not Murder 2, but something.
But if Zimmerman's assertion holds up that he stopped following Martin before any confrontation with Martin occured and that it was then Martin who pursued him and initiated a violent assault, that's quite a different matter. One can argue persuasively that Zimmerman shouldn't have gotten out of his car to follow Martin on foot, but most don't see following a suspicious individual - note that's following, NOT assaulting, NOT cornering, NOT detaining - as a criminal action, particularly when the person doing the following is on the phone with police. (How often do people with criminal intent call 911?) Most people see the person who actually initiates violence as the perp. And the public evidence available today though not conclusive and fully corroborated suggests that the person who initiated violence was Martin.
If following Martin was not a crime, and turning back to his car without confronting Martin was not a crime, then evidence suggests that Martin assaulted a man who'd committed no crime. Now, does self defense against a violent assault become a crime based on the victim's non-criminal, repeat, NON-CRIMINAL activity prior to his suffering the criminal assault, particularly since the assault happened as he was returning to his car having had no actual contact with the individual he'd deemed suspicious?
I expect more arguments, analysis, and EVIDENCE will surface in court, and we'll see what happens; maybe something credible will surface that will put a different slant on things. But if there's something there, I haven't seen it in the public record yet.
-
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, please explain to me what evidence you are looking at the shows that Zimmerman followed Martin into all those places. I don't think I have seen that.
What exactly happened after Zimmerman ended the 911 phone call and before the actual fight seems to be the area where a lot of us diverge on how we see things.
-
De Selby, please explain to me what evidence you are looking at the shows that Zimmerman followed Martin into all those places. I don't think I have seen that.
As I stated previously, DeSelby is not describing the events which took place, he is describing the dramatization which he sees in his head when he listens to the tape.
-
De Selby, please explain to me what evidence you are looking at the shows that Zimmerman followed Martin into all those places. I don't think I have seen that.
That's where the shooting took place - in a cut-through between two rows of homes.
-
This was a whole lot simpler early on when we thought "Zimmerman" was white. >:D
-
Snort.
I can't speak to Florida, but in Texas if you clearly disengage from a conflict even if you started it, and the other party tries to kill you by, oh, I don't know.....bashing your head repeatedly on the sidewalk.....it is an affirmative defense to the use of lethal force.
Is there solid evidence that Gz initiated a confrontation?
Not that I've seen. Anything else is conjecture.
And gz's statement is he was going back to his car after he stopped following Martin.
This may go down as an epic dead horse around here. You sure have a knack for flogging them.
If the Florida statute is written similarly, then you are wrong, counselor.
Sorry there champ, but I learned this subject on the basis of Texas law - Zimmerman conduct in Texas would NOT, definitely not, constitute self-defense. The evidence being where Zimmerman said on tape "these a-holes always get away" and admitted he was following Martin.
Absolutely 100 percent that would make you toast in Texas if a shooting resulted. Once you initiate a situation, the standards for "withdrawing" such that you regain the right to self-defence essentially make it impossible to prove your case.
-
It's obvious you want a Zimmerman conviction so very badly DeSelby...
Be honest and come clean about your real reasons for wanting Zimmerman to be guilty. You're dying to make some sort of point about white privilege, the American gun culture... something. It's obvious.
You should just tell us the point you really want to make here. You'll probably get hacked off enough to make it sooner or later anyway.
-
Sorry there champ, but I learned this subject on the basis of Texas law - Zimmerman conduct in Texas would NOT, definitely not, constitute self-defense. The evidence being where Zimmerman said on tape "these a-holes always get away" and admitted he was following Martin.
Absolutely 100 percent that would make you toast in Texas if a shooting resulted. Once you initiate a situation, the standards for "withdrawing" such that you regain the right to self-defence essentially make it impossible to prove your case.
BS. I took my CHL class from the man who is pretty much the authority on CHL law in Texas and has helped write most of the statutes on it. We had some very good class discussions on mutual combat and withdrawing from a situation.
If Zimmerman's account is accurate his being charged and convicted in Texas would be highly unlikely.
You're basing your desire to lynch the man on the conversation with TM and his girlfriend. He told the 911 operator he was going back to the street to get the address of where they were.
Zimmerman:
It’s a home. It’s 1950 – oh, crap, I don’t want to give it out – I don’t know where this kid is [inaudible] [3:40]
911 dispatcher:
OK, do you just want to meet with them at the mailboxes then? [3:42]
Zimmerman:
Yeah, that’s fine. [3:43]
911 dispatcher:
Alright, George, I’ll let them know you’ll meet them at …
Zimmerman:
Could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at? [3:49]
911 dispatcher:
OK, that’s no problem.
Zimmerman:
My number … you’ve got it?
911 dispatcher:
Yeah, I’ve got it. 435-2400?
Zimmerman:
Yeah, you got it.
911 dispatcher:
OK, no problem. I’ll let them know to call you when they’re in the area. [4:02]
Zimmerman:
Thanks.
His statements to the 911 operator. His statment during questioning. Both support that he was done following Martin and heading to meet the officers on the street.
You, sir, are full of crap.
-
Don't worry Jamis, De Selby won't let the facts get in the way of his damning of Zimmerman
-
Jamis, before you get carried away, you might want to consider the fact that our Merry Magistrate, who is an experienced prosecutor and judicial officer, is saying pretty much the same thing I am saying. Two lawyers posting on the thread and agreeing should give you a bit of hesitation before you decide this conduct is okay.
I'm basing my view on the Zimmerman case entirely off of the recorded 911 call, and the location of the body - Zimmerman followed someone who was running away from him into a dark space between two houses.
In Texas, again, where I got my law degree, you have no claim to self-defense if you provoked the situation. That is the word in 9.32: "provoke." Now that doesn't mean the other guy can't commit a crime by doing something to you. It just means you can't claim self-defense against a homicide
Seriously, I encourage you to ask your CHL instructor about this case and let me know what he tells you. See what advice he gives you on your prospects of a successful self-defense claim in Texas under the circumstances. I'd be mighty surprised if he tells you that you'd be legally safe after getting out of your car, following someone who ran away from you into a back-yard type area, and then shooting the guy after he ambushes you. That includes with you turning around and walking back to your car, as long as you're still near the guy you followed.
From those tapes, the only thing that would have made Zimmerman safe after getting out of the car and pursuing would be clear, easily understood communication with Trayvon Martin that would have left Martin in absolutely no doubt about who Zimmerman was and why he was following him. Not even Zimmerman claimed that he spoke to Martin before the fight.
-
Please spell out what he did to "provoke" him in your mind. You are being a bit vague on that point. Following him at some unknown distance is not enough.
-
Sorry there champ, but I learned this subject on the basis of Texas law - Zimmerman conduct in Texas would NOT, definitely not, constitute self-defense. The evidence being where Zimmerman said on tape "these a-holes always get away" and admitted he was following Martin.
Absolutely 100 percent that would make you toast in Texas if a shooting resulted. Once you initiate a situation, the standards for "withdrawing" such that you regain the right to self-defence essentially make it impossible to prove your case.
Might not be as cut & dried as you think:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy
No bill.
I also recall much discussion of this sort of thing at my CHL class(es). Mine were not taught by the man who wrote the bill, though.
-
Mech, the key feature of Zimmerman's behaviour is on the tapes - he followed someone who was trying to get away from him. That's where the problem for him is. He knew Martin was running away from him, and took steps to get closer. Although he claims he was going back to his truck, the shooting didn't happen on the street (where I presume the addresses he was reading from are?), it happened behind the homes.
Roo ster, there is a HUGE difference in your example: Joe Horn witnessed a crime. Getting out of your car to address a crime in progress is an entirely different universe from getting out to follow someone who's only "crime" is trying hard not to let you get close to them.
-
Mech, the key feature of Zimmerman's behaviour is on the tapes - he followed someone who was trying to get away from him. That's where the problem for him is. He knew Martin was running away from him, and took steps to get closer.
Following someone is not a crime. As people have repeatedly told you.
Although he claims he was going back to his truck, the shooting didn't happen on the street (where I presume the addresses he was reading from are?), it happened behind the homes.
Keyword there is going back. Unless you are not a native speaker, you should recognize that verb form strongly implies that the action is not yet finished, and therefor he would not have been at or near his truck when he stated he was going back. In other words, the fact that the confrontation did not happen at his truck in NO WAY contradicts his statement there. I really don't know how you keep missing this point.
Edit: The thing that doesn't add up to me is how people think that Zimmerman was in anyway capable of running Martin down. I had a friend who was pretty much the same height, weight and build as Martin, and he regularly outran cops who were in much better physical shape than Zimmerman was. I don't have any reason to believe Martin was in any worse physical shape than my friend was. I have heard that the confrontation took place less than 100 yards from the house Martin was staying in. A kid in his shape could easily cover that distance in 11-15 seconds. We know Zimmerman stopped running at one point because there's no more wind noise in the audio and his breathing calms down. Given that Martin had a head start and Zimmerman stopped running, there is absolutely no way Martin couldn't have gotten home and locked the door long before the confrontation started. That to me says that Martin probably doubled back and was looking for fight.
-
So again, De Selby, is it your contention that being followed, or if you like, chased by another person put Trayvon Martin in REASONABLE fear of death or serious physical injury? Because my understanding is that is the standard that would justify Martin using deadly physical force.
De Selby, I'm going to (again) guess you didn't see this... care to answer this question?
-
De Selby, I'm going to (again) guess you didn't see this... care to answer this question?
It doesn't really matter to Zimmerman's case, and we can't answer that without talking to Martin.
FYI, we've been over that multiple times on this thread - both people can be guilty of a crime. The victims reaction only has to be a foreseeable consequence, not a legally justified or sensible one, to give the shooter a problem.
-
It doesn't really matter to Zimmerman's case, and we can't answer that without talking to Martin.
FYI, we've been over that multiple times on this thread - both people can be guilty of a crime. The victims reaction only has to be a foreseeable consequence, not a legally justified or sensible one, to give the shooter a problem.
See, here's where I'm gonna *really* disagree with you. If Martin's actions were not legally justifiable (i.e. he was not in REASONABLE fear of death or serious bodily injury) then *his* attack on Zimmerman is sufficiently disproportionate to Zimmerman's actions (whether he was following or chasing) that Zimmerman becomes once again justified in using deadly physical force to defend himself (since he *did* have a reasonable fear of death or serious injury).
Florida Law deals *specifically* with this scenario:
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.
776.041 (2)(a) deals *EXACTLY* with the scenario you are describing. Even if Zimmerman "provoked" the confrontation by following (or chasing) Martin, Martin's response was disproportionate to the situation. Let me line it right up here:
The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who: (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 unless Zimmerman was "attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; " I would imagine that barring other evidence coming forward that Zimmerman shot Martin unprovoked, this case is heading towards dismissal or acquittal.
-
Dagnabit wrong button.
-
Sorry guys.. Spent last evening and all day today working with my Scout units to make sure every veteran's grave in the area has a flag on it. It's important to teach the boys of today the sacrifices of the boys (and girls) of the past.
Mak, wanted to answer your question. A citizen can approach someone on the street, ask what's happening, and still claim self defense. My concern with this situation is how far George went after Treyvon. I'mm worried a jury may hang up on his leaving a position of safety to follow Treyvon into a dark place between houses. And I'm worried the force used by Treyvon ay be seen as insufficient to justify deadly force in return. And,, again, my biggeat worryis that bad laws will e passed in response to the outrage which will make the situation more complicated than it already is.
Remember, my opionions are based on my interpretations of the law and 18 years of experience as a prosecutor and mmagistrate. Whether I think the law is morally right is a different issue.
-
And,, again, my biggeat worryis that bad laws will e passed in response to the outrage which will make the situation more complicated than it already is.
Remember, my opionions are based on my interpretations of the law and 18 years of experience as a prosecutor and mmagistrate. Whether I think the law is morally right is a different issue.
I share this worry, regardless of the outcome of this trial.
-
I share this worry, regardless of the outcome of this trial.
same here... I worry about the repercussions not just for Florida, but nationwide.
-
On TalkLeft.com, a criminal defense attorney (http://volokh.com/2012/05/28/goerge-zimmerman-and-trayvon-martin-a-likely-scenario/) goes through all of the witness statements and various evidence that is available, and concludes that Zimmerman would probably succeed even in a classic self defense case, without SYG:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/5/27/44552/1872
The problem being that none of the witness statements that supposedly contradict GZ's statements are credible. They all changed their stories months after it happened. She doesn't state this, but given how crappy the human memory is, it's very likely that the witnesses who changed their story were influenced by the media, which misreported several facts (and outright lied about others).
She also concludes, like many of us here, that following and questioning or confronting someone isn't illegal in and of itself and is not enough to provoke force out of someone else, and therefor isn't enough to disable the right to defend oneself.
-
Dang. Just read her post and another linked post... I do like what she points out with regards to the judge playing "kick the can" and wanting to send this to a jury to decide, not rule on provisions of the SYG law.
-
Her analysis of what it takes to "extricate" someone from a provoked situation is incorrect; attempting to stand up during a fight you provoked absolutely will not do it. It might make the other guy guilty of a crime too, but it doesn't give you the right to use lethal force.
That's the problem - she's arguing the facts to legal standards that aren't correct. Even if you accept her most-favourable to Zimmerman interpretation, her assertions that following someone cannot be provocation and that resisting during a fight "extricates" is enough to reenable self-defence are not legally correct. Both of these can indeed be found by a jury to constitute guilty conduct, and I'd trust Chris's analysis on what a jury is likely to do with these.
-
Her analysis of what it takes to "extricate" someone from a provoked situation is incorrect; attempting to stand up during a fight you provoked absolutely will not do it. It might make the other guy guilty of a crime too, but it doesn't give you the right to use lethal force.
No snark, just a question:
In Zimmerman's story, After he got jumped what (that he could have done) would have been trying to extricate himself? As I understand the claim he was pinned down, bleeding and screaming for help. What more should he have done to "indicate clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force"?
-
Her analysis of what it takes to "extricate" someone from a provoked situation is incorrect; attempting to stand up during a fight you provoked absolutely will not do it. It might make the other guy guilty of a crime too, but it doesn't give you the right to use lethal force.
That's the problem - she's arguing the facts to legal standards that aren't correct. Even if you accept her most-favourable to Zimmerman interpretation, her assertions that following someone cannot be provocation and that resisting during a fight "extricates" is enough to reenable self-defence are not legally correct. Both of these can indeed be found by a jury to constitute guilty conduct, and I'd trust Chris's analysis on what a jury is likely to do with these.
What crime did zimmerman commit? I'm not sure I remember if you said what crime you think he committed.
-
No snark, just a question:
In Zimmerman's story, After he got jumped what (that he could have done) would have been trying to extricate himself? As I understand the claim he was pinned down, bleeding and screaming for help. What more should he have done to "indicate clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force"?
Wouldn't take it as snark- the reason why people heavily litigate whether they are the initial aggressor is that once you are deemed an aggressor, it's basically impossible to meet the standard for withdrawal.
Being pinned down mid fight, it would take stopping the fight, clearly indicating that you were done and meant no harm, and doing so in a way that no reasonable person could mistake for anything other than a genuine desire to quit. Crying out while being pummeled doesn't do it because it doesn't provide an opportunity for the other guy to sit back and think about what's happening.
Again, this is why a decent lawyer or instructor always advises you not to give chase - once you're deemed the aggressor, if violence results, it's essentially impossible to absolve yourself of liability. All that you can do is reduce your sentence.
-
What crime did zimmerman commit? I'm not sure I remember if you said what crime you think he committed.
Sorry, I thought Id said multiple times that I think the tapes show he committed manslaughter, by engaging in negligent behaviour (not necessarily itself a crime) that caused the death of another.
Yet another important feature of self defence law: bad decisions don't have to be demonstrably criminal in the abstract for you to end up facing the jury. A really bad choice that leads to a lethal confrontation is a text book example of manslaughter. There are no predicate offences; in reality, committing a crime that leads to death usually makes it either depraved indifference (murder two, most places) or a capital offence.
Manslaughter is a lesser offence largely because the people who commit it haven't committed other crimes occasioning death.
-
Sorry, I thought Id said multiple times that I think the tapes show he committed manslaughter, by engaging in negligent behaviour (not necessarily itself a crime) that caused the death of another.
Yet another important feature of self defence law: bad decisions don't have to be demonstrably criminal in the abstract for you to end up facing the jury. A really bad choice that leads to a lethal confrontation is a text book example of manslaughter. There are no predicate offences; in reality, committing a crime that leads to death usually makes it either depraved indifference (murder two, most places) or a capital offence.
Manslaughter is a lesser offence largely because the people who commit it haven't committed other crimes occasioning death.
You answered my question.
-
Sorry, I thought Id said multiple times that I think the tapes show he committed manslaughter, by engaging in negligent behaviour (not necessarily itself a crime) that caused the death of another.
That's a VERY poor description of this incident.
"Negligent behavior?" So, if I forget my keys which makes me turn around and head back to my house, where I find someone breaking in and I shoot them to protect my family, I'm guilty of manslaughter?
After all, I was negligent in forgetting my keys and if I hadn't returned, that poor misunderstood youth likely wouldn't have died! (Now, my family may have, but since his crimes are apparently unrelated to my crime, we can just ignore that.)
With the evidence available Zimmerman's only "negligent behavior" was exiting his vehicle and attempting to see where Mr. Martin had run off to. (No, not your supposition that he MUST have chased that poor boy down and accosted him.)
-
With the evidence available Zimmerman's only "negligent behavior" was exiting his vehicle and attempting to see where Mr. Martin had run off to. (No, not your supposition that he MUST have chased that poor boy down and accosted him.)
Ok, you recognise that as negligent (following someone running away from you, which he says happened on tape) into a dark space between two homes. He did so without identifying himself.
That is undoubtedly a decision that, if it had not been made, the shooting would not have happened.
Hence the lead investigator's conclusion, before this became a media frenzy, that the confrontation was "ultimately avoidable," and therefore there was probable cause to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter.
That's what manslaughter is - culpable negligence that causes death.
-
That's what manslaughter is - culpable negligence that causes death.
FINALLY, you get to the most important part of the definition. You are arguing that getting out of his vehicle makes him culpable, not negligent.
And this is where I disagree. Culpababilty and the proximate cause of Martin's death was his own decision to assault a person who was committing no crime.
Just as my forgetting my keys did not force the thief to attempt to break into my house, exiting his vehicle did not cause Mr. Martin to violently assault Mr. Zimmerman.
Further, I would argue that jumping on a downed person indicates intent of great bodily harm, and that THIS was the proximate cause of Mr. Martin's death, not exiting a vehicle, which has as much relation to this case as my return trip to retrieve my keys.
-
Hence the lead investigator's conclusion, before this became a media frenzy, that the confrontation was "ultimately avoidable," and therefore there was probable cause to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter.
My problem with this line of reasoning, is that every confrontation is "ultimatly avoidable". I think that you (and to be fair, others) are putting too much weight on Zimmerman following Martin to see where he went. Or rather, I think that decision is far enough back the decision chain to make it not manslaughter.
To make it criminally negligant (as I understand it) it needs to be a behavior that made it likely to end in physical violence. And I don't think it was. Certainly a verbal confrontation was likely, but 90 times out of 100 that decision ends in a verbal contact (maybe not polite) and that's it.
It was Martin's decision to initate violence without justification that led to the shooting.
-
And I'm worried the force used by Treyvon ay be seen as insufficient to justify deadly force in return.
No disagreement with the other statements you made.
On this one, I thought Florida law was similarly worded to Texas as including "serious bodily injury" as justification for deadly force. I could be wrong. In Texas, case law has established that beating someone with fists can cause "serious bodily injury". I have idea how far case law in Florida has gone to define this.
I would be curious if anyone here is familiary with that point.
-
De Selby, how does your assertion that "both are guilty of a crime" correlate with Florida state law? Big long post at the beginning of this page (page 8 ), but I"ll repost the relevant section here for you:
---------------------------------------------------
See, here's where I'm gonna *really* disagree with you. If Martin's actions were not legally justifiable (i.e. he was not in REASONABLE fear of death or serious bodily injury) then *his* attack on Zimmerman is sufficiently disproportionate to Zimmerman's actions (whether he was following or chasing) that Zimmerman becomes once again justified in using deadly physical force to defend himself (since he *did* have a reasonable fear of death or serious injury).
Florida Law deals *specifically* with this scenario:
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.
776.041 (2)(a) deals *EXACTLY* with the scenario you are describing. Even if Zimmerman "provoked" the confrontation by following (or chasing) Martin, Martin's response was disproportionate to the situation. Let me line it right up here:
The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who: (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.
-
Wouldn't take it as snark- the reason why people heavily litigate whether they are the initial aggressor is that once you are deemed an aggressor, it's basically impossible to meet the standard for withdrawal.
Being pinned down mid fight, it would take stopping the fight, clearly indicating that you were done and meant no harm, and doing so in a way that no reasonable person could mistake for anything other than a genuine desire to quit. Crying out while being pummeled doesn't do it because it doesn't provide an opportunity for the other guy to sit back and think about what's happening.
Again, this is why a decent lawyer or instructor always advises you not to give chase - once you're deemed the aggressor, if violence results, it's essentially impossible to absolve yourself of liability. All that you can do is reduce your sentence.
So if GZ did what you are saying (stop fighting) and TM just kept attacking would GZ then be justified in shooting TM?
-
Being pinned down mid fight, it would take stopping the fight, clearly indicating that you were done and meant no harm, and doing so in a way that no reasonable person could mistake for anything other than a genuine desire to quit. Crying out while being pummeled doesn't do it because it doesn't provide an opportunity for the other guy to sit back and think about what's happening.
This is just...flabbergasting. How exactly is someone who is pinned down and being pummeled supposed to disengage? You really can't at that point, and if shielding yourself and yelling "HELP!" doesn't show that you don't wish to fight, what the hell does?
In MMA and other such sports, someone who is pinned down often requires the ref to come in and stop the beating, because it's impossible for the person who is pinned (someone who is a trained fighter) to disengage or adequately fight back. And that's in an organized fight. "Tap outs" aren't recognized in street fights.
-
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
-
Everyone is stuck on the provision that Zimmerman would need to disengage (myself included) however, FL law has an OR in the language. The "disengagement" clause is actually the second part of the "or". The first part (and I'll quote it again) is the "proportionality" clause.
(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.
Even if Zimmerman had chased Martin, even if Zimmerman had grabbed Martin, even if Zimmerman had smacked Martin upside the head, BECAUSE MARTIN USED DISPROPORTIONATE FORCE THAT COULD LEAD TO GREAT BODILY HARM, *AND* Zimmerman could not escape (because Martin had him pinned down), Zimmerman was justified in using deadly physical force to defend himself.
-
So if GZ did what you are saying (stop fighting) and TM just kept attacking would GZ then be justified in shooting TM?
It would take more than that - if they'd both stopped and GZ said "I'm just in neighborhood watch, I don't want to hurt you, etc" and then TM said "oh, we'll I don't care, I'm going to hit you anyway".
That's why withdrawal is mostly a write off - its best to spend your time and lawyer money arguing that you weren't the aggressor. Once you become the aggressor, the scenarios that would let you reclaim self defense are mostly unrealistic.
-
Once you become the aggressor, the scenarios that would let you reclaim self defense are mostly unrealistic.
Really? The Florida statute I've been quoting seems to provide a pretty clear cut example of how the "agressor" reclaims self-defense.
-
This is just...flabbergasting. How exactly is someone who is pinned down and being pummeled supposed to disengage? You really can't at that point, and if shielding yourself and yelling "HELP!" doesn't show that you don't wish to fight, what the hell does?
In MMA and other such sports, someone who is pinned down often requires the ref to come in and stop the beating, because it's impossible for the person who is pinned (someone who is a trained fighter) to disengage or adequately fight back. And that's in an organized fight. "Tap outs" aren't recognized in street fights.
Its not realistic that you'd stop mid fight, and that's the point - its essential that you not do things which you know could start an armed confrontation. Once you do that, you're likely to end up in trouble if a shooting occurs, no matter how hard you tried to undo the mistake.
I'll say again, I'm not sure why this is news to Gun owners. In nearly every self defense thread I've ever seen, a chorus gets going about how you do not leave positions of safety to seek out dangerous suspects. If this were a scenario on Strategies and Tactics on any other board, and a shooting had not happened, how many people would be telling the poster what a dumb move it was to get out of the car and follow the suspect into a dark space???
If the behaviour in question is something that you could reflexively call a dumb move, and it results in a shooting, yeah folks....a criminal trial is the likely result. The most bizarre thing about this case isn't the murder two charge, it's that they didn't charge it on the first day.
-
I have not heard a single person (in all of the threads we have had) say that what Zimmerman did was smart, good tactics, or admirable. However, being dumb is not in and of itself criminal. What we are discussing is, with the information we currently have, was Zimmerman justified in using deadly physical force to defend himself.
-
:facepalm: The physical evidence belies the idea of mutual combat. Absent mutual combat the person w/ the injuries to his hands was the aggressor and the person w/ the injuries to his face and to the back of his head was the victim. The only reason this simple sensible statement is open to debate is because racial politics got involved. Perhaps Zimmerman requested Martin to sit on his chest and bust up his face and scalp so he would be justified in shooting him. The fact that the lead investigator wanted to charge 'Z' w/ manslaughter is not evidence and carries no weight. Has anyone heard his reasoning for wanting to file this charge ? Does anyone truly believe that if the races were reversed we'd even be discussing this incident ?
I think what happened here is a kid attacked the wrong victim and learned too late that he was armed and willing to defend himself. If the race baiters had used this as a teachable moment to warn thugs against attacking unknown victims something positive might have actually come from this ... :cool:
-
Its not realistic that you'd stop mid fight, and that's the point - its essential that you not do things which you know could start an armed confrontation.
Where could I find the list of what those things are? Would my local police/sheriff have that, or should I check with the state? ???
-
Where could I find the list of what those things are? Would my local police/sheriff have that, or should I check with the state? ???
You have to use your common sense - as you do for interpreting most laws. If everyone you know would say "that's dumb!", and the activity could foreseeably cause death, you are at risk. That's a good rule of thumb for avoiding the jury.
Had Zimmerman gone to a lawyer and asked about chasing down suspects in his neighborhood before this happened, he'd have received the exact same advice. The dispatcher knew what he was doing was a bad idea, everyone on this forum knows this was a dumb move, and now someone who actually was just walking down the street before running away to avoid the confrontation is dead.
-
You have to use your common sense - as you do for interpreting most laws.
"Common sense" and "interpreting law" are often mutually exclusive when politics are thrown into the mix....
-
Its not realistic that you'd stop mid fight, and that's the point - its essential that you not do things which you know could start an armed confrontation. Once you do that, you're likely to end up in trouble if a shooting occurs, no matter how hard you tried to undo the mistake.
So, if Zimmerman hadn't been armed, would watching or following Martin have been okay?
-
You have to use your common sense - as you do for interpreting most laws. If everyone you know would say "that's dumb!", and the activity could foreseeably cause death, you are at risk. That's a good rule of thumb for avoiding the jury.
Had Zimmerman gone to a lawyer and asked about chasing down suspects in his neighborhood before this happened, he'd have received the exact same advice. The dispatcher knew what he was doing was a bad idea, everyone on this forum knows this was a dumb move, and now someone who actually was just walking down the street before running away to avoid the confrontation is dead.
Here's the problem: that's not how Florida law reads on the matter. AmbulanceDriver has quoted it twice to you, and you've ignored it both times. Again, here's the relevant section:
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.
I've bolded the section that deals SPECIFICALLY with this scenario, since there's no indication that Zimmerman committed a forcible felony.
Now, how is it that Zimmerman, being on the ground and having his skull punched in, does NOT meet the exception under section 2a? In fact, that exception describes the way YOU describe what happened to a "T". Having your skull punched in pretty clearly meets the definition of "being in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm", and since he was pinned to the ground he had "exhausted every means of escape." He yelled for help for almost a minute while he was having his head bashed in before he shot. I'd say he pretty thoroughly exhausted his options in terms of use of force. His only other options at that point were to take the beating and hope TM killed him instead of turning him into a vegetable.
And remember, there weren't any injuries to TM save for the gunshot wound and the abrasions on his knuckles, which means that it wasn't mutual combat and was entirely one sided.
So even if Zimmerman somehow provoked the attack (which I do not see any evidence for), he can STILL claim self defense unless he was committing a forcible felony, of which, again, there is no evidence for.
-
If the race baiters had used this as a teachable moment to warn thugs against attacking unknown victims something positive might have actually come from this
There's no money in that.
-
So, if Zimmerman hadn't been armed, would watching or following Martin have been okay?
Might have - we certainly wouldn't be able to argue about whether he caused an armed confrontation.
Being armed means there are some otherwise legal activities that can become negligent - ie, drinking, being clumsy and dropping things, dry firing, etc. Just because something is legal in the abstract doesn't mean it can't become criminal negligence under the circumstances.
Regolith, let's see how that argument works out for Zimmerman. He is already on trial.
-
Might have - we certainly wouldn't be able to argue about whether he caused an armed confrontation.
Ask an absurd question, get an absurd answer.
-
Ask an absurd question, get an absurd answer.
Where's the absurdity there? I don't think it's all that bizarre to consider that you need to be a little more careful when armed than when not.
-
The absurdity is that Martin presumably had no idea that Zimmerman was armed. By saying that Zimmerman would have been okay if he'd followed Martin while unarmed, you're ascribing guilt to the presence of the gun.
IF the scenario played out as Zimmerman has stated (which we still don't know for certain), then he may well have been very seriously injured--or even killed--from Martin hitting him.
Zimmerman was either right or wrong to follow Martin, gun or no gun. The presence of the gun didn't instigate the altercation.
-
I think what happened here is a kid attacked the wrong victim
yup truly a teachable moment
-
. . . Even if Zimmerman had chased Martin, even if Zimmerman had grabbed Martin, even if Zimmerman had smacked Martin upside the head, BECAUSE MARTIN USED DISPROPORTIONATE FORCE THAT COULD LEAD TO GREAT BODILY HARM, *AND* Zimmerman could not escape (because Martin had him pinned down), Zimmerman was justified in using deadly physical force to defend himself.
We're mostly on the same page, but I have to nitpick a little on this . . . the cited Florida statute would seem to suggest that a minor incident does not eliminate the right to self defense if the other party greatly escalates the conflict to the point where you're likely to be seriously injured, but I suspect it would be very difficult to successfully argue self defense to a jury if you employ deadly force because you start losing an actual fight that you started in the first place. If Zimmerman physically assaulted Martin ("smacked Martin upside the head"), regardless of the language of the statute, I doubt a jury will be sympathetic to him . . .
Of course, there is absolutely no evidence in the public domain right now that Zimmerman started any kind of fight or even so much as initiated verbal contact with Martin, so it would seem that he absolutely HAD the right to self defense.
. . . Being pinned down mid fight, it would take stopping the fight, clearly indicating that you were done and meant no harm, and doing so in a way that no reasonable person could mistake for anything other than a genuine desire to quit. Crying out while being pummeled doesn't do it because it doesn't provide an opportunity for the other guy to sit back and think about what's happening.
Let's see . . . DeSelby's arguments have already established that if some unwelcome panhandler follows me for a bit down the street, between houses, around trees, etc., I can go ahead and chase him down and beat the snot out of him even after he stops following and is returning to his street corner. Now I learn that, once he's down, I can CONTINUE beating the snot out of him even if he's crying out for me to stop because in the heat of administering the beating, I really don't have an opportunity to sit back and think about what I'm doing.
Cool! :cool:
-
only if you are black and the panhandler is white or "white Hispanic " you gotta follow deselby's rules
-
Hank, I actually agree with you there, in a scenario of "mutual combat" that is correct, but then the second half of the language, the "withdrawal" clause can come in to play.
-
Regolith, let's see how that argument works out for Zimmerman. He is already on trial.
De Selby, we already know that Zimmerman is on trial. What I would like to know is how you feel your assertion that Zimmerman is guilty squares with the Florida statute that has been quoted at least three times in the last two pages.
-
So, if Zimmerman hadn't been armed, would watching or following Martin have been okay?
Just fine, except that Zimmerman would be dead.
-
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.
-
[quote}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?[/quote]
I'd say there are some parallels, but IMO Zimmerman more closely follows A than B.
In the case above B left his position of safety for the specific purpose of fighting A. Thus far, there's been no evidence made public that Zimmerman intended to cause a fight with Trayvon. If anything Zimmerman parallels A more closely. Both armed themselves to go into a potentially dangerous situation, both did things that were probably bad ideas and put themselves in stupid situations, and both had to defend themselves as a result. But putting yourself in a stupid position is not criminal nor does it make you liable for someone else attacking you.
-
Chris, I guess the difference that I see between the two cases is that in your case, man b knew that man a was there spoiling for a fight. He *knowingly* left a place of safety. While in hindsight we can see that Zimmerman left a place of safety, at the time I don't think he felt that Martin was in any way dangerous. He was someone Zimmerman thought was acting suspicious, and he got out of his vehicle to try to follow him and report his location to police. If Zimmerman had been threatened or "called out" by Martin, I would agree that he knowingly left a place of safety.
-
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.
First of all, you note he was acquitted.
Secondly, he left a position of safety sought out a confrontation. There is no evidence the Zimmerman sought a confrontation.
Now, leaving his position of safety does increase the chances of a confrontation occurring, but unless there is some evidence that was Zimmerman's intent (DeSelby's unsopported theorizing not included), your example doesn't match.
-
Chris, in your example "A" is roughly analogous to Zimmerman in that 1) A went to see B; 2) A didn't initiate violence; 3) A used a weapon to stop the violence B initiated.
On the other hand "B" is roughly analogous to Martin, in that 1) B was not assaulted by A; 2) B was damaging A in what could be regarded as a serious matter; 3) B actually left the position of safety - his house - and went after A.
Though not in his house, Martin was essentially in a position of safety (as was B) once Zimmerman had stopped following and was returning to his car.
Using this example, Zimmerman is less culpable than A because unlike A, it would seem he never actually initiated contact - verbal or otherwise - with Martin.
The jury regarded B as the aggressor because he "went after A". Unless additional evidence surfaces, I would expect the same with the Zimmerman trial.
-
Chris, in your example you have person A going to confront someone, backed by others and armed. He was obviously expecting violence or the reasonable possibility. Person B charged person A, aware that he's outnumbered. Whether he "charged" for hostile reasons, I don't know. I can only assume so because of your use of the word "charged".
In the Martin/Zimmerman case, we have Zimmerman following Martin, but not charging. He's reporting Martin to the police, and backs off when told to do so. We have Martin presumably charging and assaulting Zimmerman, and not because Zimmerman showed any intention to cause violence.
The two cases aren't analogous.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 =(
-
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.
-
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 . . .
-
If only he were running for US Senate in Massachusetts, he could at least calim to be a Cherokee.
:cool: :lol:
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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)
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
(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.
-
Except official neighborhood watch organizations are supposed to be unarmed and rely only on police response.
Well, screw that >:D
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.
-
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.
-
So you agree he'll be acquitted then?
-
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.
-
. . . 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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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???
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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"......
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
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."
-
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
-
Precisely the same reason Batman does not kill:
he injects himself into situations, and thus, to kill would not be self defense.
-
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.
-
they just revoked his bond over him having more cash stashed than they knew about and an alleged second passport
-
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.......
-
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... :lol:
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Why wait? He should have done that last week.
-
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.
His only hope in that case would be to delay the trial so that it would highly unlikely to conclude before the election. If Obama is a lame duck I wouldn't think he'd bother with that. Maybe, just to be spiteful. But I think he'd have so many other spiteful actions to take that this wouldn't be high enough on the priorities list.
-
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.
This.....hope his lawyer brushed up on the Richard Jewell & LAPD Police/Rodney King Federal cases....
-
Things would be so much easier on the judge if Zimmerman got some jailhouse justice and didn't make it to trial . . .
(He's in isolation now - let's hope someone doesn't make an error and put him in the general population for a bit. )
-
By this logic, when a police officer on patrol is attacked and kills a perp, it's not self defense, either.
What about a fisherman who is fishing for Tuna and is attacked by a great white shark. If he then kills the shark in heated battle, was he fishing or engaged in sweet, sweet sea-battle?
-
What about a fisherman who is fishing for Tuna and is attacked by a great white shark. If he then kills the shark in heated battle, was he fishing or engaged in sweet, sweet sea-battle?
Poaching, according to the Whale-War-types.....
-
What about a fisherman who is fishing for Tuna and is attacked by a great white shark. If he then kills the shark in heated battle, was he fishing or engaged in sweet, sweet sea-battle?
I don't think you're allowed to keep a GWS. [tinfoil] Make that a mako, or salmon shark, or thresher and you've got some great table fare that is legal in at least some parts of the USA to keep. [ar15]
-
I don't think you're allowed to keep a GWS. ...
But the shark is allow to keep you.
Sounds a lot like the Z-M incident: lots of people are prejudiced against sharks.
-
Yes, but only White sharks.... (or sharks who have one parent who is Great White and one that is.... gah. ran out of steam on that one)
-
Yes, but only White sharks.... (or sharks who have one parent who is Great White and one that is.... gah. ran out of steam on that one)
Maybe if you'd led with the "3/5ths GWS Rule"?....
-
Yes, but only White sharks.... (or sharks who have one parent who is Great White and one that is.... gah. ran out of steam on that one)
Maybe when underwater, black and white are reversed ??? =|