This George Zimmerman thing

[Meshugger]

Has this been posted yet? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX1sxARNq_c

[Gorth]

Thread pruned a bit. I'm sure it's possible to disagree in a less antagonistic manner

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

My only experience with Piers Morgan had him next to Alex Jones, so it's kind of hard to not think "Piers seems to be a pretty stand up guy" next to that....

I think that almost anyone would look better next to Alex Jones.

[Walsingham]

 

My only experience with Piers Morgan had him next to Alex Jones, so it's kind of hard to not think "Piers seems to be a pretty stand up guy" next to that....

I think that almost anyone would look better next to Alex Jones.

 

 

How about me and Volo and oby?

[Orogun01]

 

 

My only experience with Piers Morgan had him next to Alex Jones, so it's kind of hard to not think "Piers seems to be a pretty stand up guy" next to that....

I think that almost anyone would look better next to Alex Jones.

 

 

How about me and Volo and oby?

 

Sounds like "The View"

[Amentep]

"The View Askew"

[Gfted1]

"Three blind mice"

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

My only experience with Piers Morgan had him next to Alex Jones, so it's kind of hard to not think "Piers seems to be a pretty stand up guy" next to that....

I think that almost anyone would look better next to Alex Jones.

 

 

How about me and Volo and oby?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQpD9LolO-k

 

Maybe not oby.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I tremble for my country when I think how they lie : http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2013/07/how-not-to-correct-the-record.html

[Longknife]

As someone who's studied (German) Law, this case is baffling to me for a couple reasons.

 

The first is that in German law and I'd ASSUME American law as well, you're not allowed to claim "self-defense" if you yourself incited or provoked the confrontation. You can't pick a fight or provoke one and then yell "self-defense" just because they swung first. The simple fact that Zimmerman chose to follow and approach a man he himself believed to be a potential threat even after the cops told him it wasn't neccesary? Zimmerman should have a difficult time claiming self-defense because of that alone. This is sort of why cops are so against vigilante justice, because yes, aside from the obvious endangerment of yourself in the situation itself, charging head-on into danger can actually make things more difficult for you in court, because now we have to examine if you overstepped your boundaries as a citizen and somehow caused the situation to escalate.

 

The second thing, and I assume the Stand-Your-Ground law kinda makes this moot, is that another condition for self defense is that you use "reasonable force." What this means is that if a thief on the street tries to take your wallet and comes at you swinging, you can't just pull a gun and shoot him dead. You need to try to use the mildest method to take care of the problem. In Zimmerman's case, even if Trayvond had truly attacked him first, the reasonable reaction would be to either run away, punch back, and MAYBE you could argue a knife would be acceptable, depending on the conditions. (For example if Zimmerman was an easily excited or frightened person, or if Trayvond had an obvious visual size advantage over Zimmerman) A gun? No no, any court I know of (though again I'm in Germany) would immediately be screaming at him for being so quick to resort to killing. (assuming of course gun ownership were ever an issue here to begin with)

 

 

As I said, the second might be moot entirely, but what amazes me is to simply know that if this case had taken place in any other modern country, Zimmerman would've been convicted of manslaughter. It's the kind of case that gets attention because it's a fringe case that highlights a CLEAR difference in the judicial system in states that have Stand Your Ground law. I remember in one of my very first classes, we were given an old case highlighting that a group of men convicted of manslaughter in the Britain would've been found innocent in Germany, because the reason they killed the person they did was because they were stranded at sea and at some point, decided that UNLESS they kill and eat their friend that was significantly weaker/sicker/closer to death than them, they were all going to die, and Germany ruled that as a form of self-defense/preservation whereas the Britain did not.

   That was kind of a shock for us cause it was like "wow, they'd still be alive if they just had a different country," and here it's "wow Zimmerman would be behind bars if he lived basically anywhere else."

 

 

 

 

 

Finally, and this kind of baffles me....

I saw snippets of the case where they were trying to point out Trayvond as a racist.

 

What the **** does this matter?

 

Listen, if I shoot a guy I believe to be my old college professor who I hate and I want him dead for no other reason than that he flunked me out of a class and I hate him for it, but as it turns out, the person I was aiming at was actually Adolf Hitler and I was mistaken, this does NOT excuse me for being guilty of murder. I had no idea it was Hitler; my intent was that of a criminal and a man lies dead so objectively I've succeeded in commiting murder. It's the same thing here: Zimmerman had no idea who Trayvond was, had no way of hearing anything Trayvond said and wouldn't know if Trayvond was a racist, a drug dealer, a murderer or a man who lights kittens on fire in his free time. To him, Trayvond was just "some black kid," so the entire issue of Trayvond being racist or not is highly irrelevant.

   I'm not so much surprised the prosecution would try including something like that anyways, I am however surprised the judge and the court allowed such irrelevant BS to make it into court. That? That truly amazes me.

 

 

 

And of course the last thing that baffles me is how people can hail Zimmerman as a hero. Again, even IF we were to find out tomorrow that Trayvond planned on blowing up a school or something, that doesn't make Zimmerman a hero. He did what he did for all the wrong reasons. At best, you can excuse Zimmerman and argue what he did was "reasonable" (AKA it's sad circumstances, but Zimmerman reacted reasonably and simply feared for his life), but a hero? At worst, he's a highly negligent, overzealous coward without a grip on reality who just shot a kid because his heroism fantasy came crashing down on him in the form of harsh reality; why is THIS view not more common? Not saying people SHOULD view him that way, but between hero and coward, I'd definitely opt for the latter.

[Nepenthe]

As someone who's studied (German) Law, this case is baffling to me for a couple reasons.

 

The first is that in German law and I'd ASSUME American law as well, you're not allowed to claim "self-defense" if you yourself incited or provoked the confrontation. You can't pick a fight or provoke one and then yell "self-defense" just because they swung first. The simple fact that Zimmerman chose to follow and approach a man he himself believed to be a potential threat even after the cops told him it wasn't neccesary? Zimmerman should have a difficult time claiming self-defense because of that alone. This is sort of why cops are so against vigilante justice, because yes, aside from the obvious endangerment of yourself in the situation itself, charging head-on into danger can actually make things more difficult for you in court, because now we have to examine if you overstepped your boundaries as a citizen and somehow caused the situation to escalate.

 

The second thing, and I assume the Stand-Your-Ground law kinda makes this moot, is that another condition for self defense is that you use "reasonable force." What this means is that if a thief on the street tries to take your wallet and comes at you swinging, you can't just pull a gun and shoot him dead. You need to try to use the mildest method to take care of the problem. In Zimmerman's case, even if Trayvond had truly attacked him first, the reasonable reaction would be to either run away, punch back, and MAYBE you could argue a knife would be acceptable, depending on the conditions. (For example if Zimmerman was an easily excited or frightened person, or if Trayvond had an obvious visual size advantage over Zimmerman) A gun? No no, any court I know of (though again I'm in Germany) would immediately be screaming at him for being so quick to resort to killing. (assuming of course gun ownership were ever an issue here to begin with)

 

 

As I said, the second might be moot entirely, but what amazes me is to simply know that if this case had taken place in any other modern country, Zimmerman would've been convicted of manslaughter. It's the kind of case that gets attention because it's a fringe case that highlights a CLEAR difference in the judicial system in states that have Stand Your Ground law. I remember in one of my very first classes, we were given an old case highlighting that a group of men convicted of manslaughter in the Britain would've been found innocent in Germany, because the reason they killed the person they did was because they were stranded at sea and at some point, decided that UNLESS they kill and eat their friend that was significantly weaker/sicker/closer to death than them, they were all going to die, and Germany ruled that as a form of self-defense/preservation whereas the Britain did not.

   That was kind of a shock for us cause it was like "wow, they'd still be alive if they just had a different country," and here it's "wow Zimmerman would be behind bars if he lived basically anywhere else."

 

 

 

 

 

Finally, and this kind of baffles me....

I saw snippets of the case where they were trying to point out Trayvond as a racist.

 

What the **** does this matter?

 

Listen, if I shoot a guy I believe to be my old college professor who I hate and I want him dead for no other reason than that he flunked me out of a class and I hate him for it, but as it turns out, the person I was aiming at was actually Adolf Hitler and I was mistaken, this does NOT excuse me for being guilty of murder. I had no idea it was Hitler; my intent was that of a criminal and a man lies dead so objectively I've succeeded in commiting murder. It's the same thing here: Zimmerman had no idea who Trayvond was, had no way of hearing anything Trayvond said and wouldn't know if Trayvond was a racist, a drug dealer, a murderer or a man who lights kittens on fire in his free time. To him, Trayvond was just "some black kid," so the entire issue of Trayvond being racist or not is highly irrelevant.

   I'm not so much surprised the prosecution would try including something like that anyways, I am however surprised the judge and the court allowed such irrelevant BS to make it into court. That? That truly amazes me.

 

 

 

And of course the last thing that baffles me is how people can hail Zimmerman as a hero. Again, even IF we were to find out tomorrow that Trayvond planned on blowing up a school or something, that doesn't make Zimmerman a hero. He did what he did for all the wrong reasons. At best, you can excuse Zimmerman and argue what he did was "reasonable" (AKA it's sad circumstances, but Zimmerman reacted reasonably and simply feared for his life), but a hero? At worst, he's a highly negligent, overzealous coward without a grip on reality who just shot a kid because his heroism fantasy came crashing down on him in the form of harsh reality; why is THIS view not more common? Not saying people SHOULD view him that way, but between hero and coward, I'd definitely opt for the latter.

 

I think you've mostly succeeded in highlighting the differences regarding both self defence and court process between a classic german (and by absorption from Germany, Nordic) legal system and the U.S. one.

 

[Volourn]

L0L germany law L0L

[Longknife]

 

As someone who's studied (German) Law, this case is baffling to me for a couple reasons.

 

The first is that in German law and I'd ASSUME American law as well, you're not allowed to claim "self-defense" if you yourself incited or provoked the confrontation. You can't pick a fight or provoke one and then yell "self-defense" just because they swung first. The simple fact that Zimmerman chose to follow and approach a man he himself believed to be a potential threat even after the cops told him it wasn't neccesary? Zimmerman should have a difficult time claiming self-defense because of that alone. This is sort of why cops are so against vigilante justice, because yes, aside from the obvious endangerment of yourself in the situation itself, charging head-on into danger can actually make things more difficult for you in court, because now we have to examine if you overstepped your boundaries as a citizen and somehow caused the situation to escalate.

 

The second thing, and I assume the Stand-Your-Ground law kinda makes this moot, is that another condition for self defense is that you use "reasonable force." What this means is that if a thief on the street tries to take your wallet and comes at you swinging, you can't just pull a gun and shoot him dead. You need to try to use the mildest method to take care of the problem. In Zimmerman's case, even if Trayvond had truly attacked him first, the reasonable reaction would be to either run away, punch back, and MAYBE you could argue a knife would be acceptable, depending on the conditions. (For example if Zimmerman was an easily excited or frightened person, or if Trayvond had an obvious visual size advantage over Zimmerman) A gun? No no, any court I know of (though again I'm in Germany) would immediately be screaming at him for being so quick to resort to killing. (assuming of course gun ownership were ever an issue here to begin with)

 

 

As I said, the second might be moot entirely, but what amazes me is to simply know that if this case had taken place in any other modern country, Zimmerman would've been convicted of manslaughter. It's the kind of case that gets attention because it's a fringe case that highlights a CLEAR difference in the judicial system in states that have Stand Your Ground law. I remember in one of my very first classes, we were given an old case highlighting that a group of men convicted of manslaughter in the Britain would've been found innocent in Germany, because the reason they killed the person they did was because they were stranded at sea and at some point, decided that UNLESS they kill and eat their friend that was significantly weaker/sicker/closer to death than them, they were all going to die, and Germany ruled that as a form of self-defense/preservation whereas the Britain did not.

   That was kind of a shock for us cause it was like "wow, they'd still be alive if they just had a different country," and here it's "wow Zimmerman would be behind bars if he lived basically anywhere else."

 

 

 

 

 

Finally, and this kind of baffles me....

I saw snippets of the case where they were trying to point out Trayvond as a racist.

 

What the **** does this matter?

 

Listen, if I shoot a guy I believe to be my old college professor who I hate and I want him dead for no other reason than that he flunked me out of a class and I hate him for it, but as it turns out, the person I was aiming at was actually Adolf Hitler and I was mistaken, this does NOT excuse me for being guilty of murder. I had no idea it was Hitler; my intent was that of a criminal and a man lies dead so objectively I've succeeded in commiting murder. It's the same thing here: Zimmerman had no idea who Trayvond was, had no way of hearing anything Trayvond said and wouldn't know if Trayvond was a racist, a drug dealer, a murderer or a man who lights kittens on fire in his free time. To him, Trayvond was just "some black kid," so the entire issue of Trayvond being racist or not is highly irrelevant.

   I'm not so much surprised the prosecution would try including something like that anyways, I am however surprised the judge and the court allowed such irrelevant BS to make it into court. That? That truly amazes me.

 

 

 

And of course the last thing that baffles me is how people can hail Zimmerman as a hero. Again, even IF we were to find out tomorrow that Trayvond planned on blowing up a school or something, that doesn't make Zimmerman a hero. He did what he did for all the wrong reasons. At best, you can excuse Zimmerman and argue what he did was "reasonable" (AKA it's sad circumstances, but Zimmerman reacted reasonably and simply feared for his life), but a hero? At worst, he's a highly negligent, overzealous coward without a grip on reality who just shot a kid because his heroism fantasy came crashing down on him in the form of harsh reality; why is THIS view not more common? Not saying people SHOULD view him that way, but between hero and coward, I'd definitely opt for the latter.

 

I think you've mostly succeeded in highlighting the differences regarding both self defence and court process between a classic german (and by absorption from Germany, Nordic) legal system and the U.S. one.

 

 

 

 

Well look, I'm not like, trying to sit here and say "stupid americans, their legal system sucks"; hell I'm a dual citizen and half-american.

But it just kind of boggles my mind, because even though they're obviously different legal systems, the goals are basically the same and it's more likely the systems would be similar rather than radically different (maybe different in practice but not in results), and yet I sit here wondering why the HELL that court even allowed that crap about labeling Trayvond as a racist on through.

 

But all that aside, like even the case itself, it's truly baffling to see ANYONE hailing Zimmerman as a hero for his actions. It just kind of amazes me how we can go from "let's be reasonable here and try to understand Zimmerman's side" to "good riddance, Trayvond had it coming. How dare he buy skittles?!"

[Hiro Protagonist]

 

The second thing, and I assume the Stand-Your-Ground law kinda makes this moot, is that another condition for self defense is that you use "reasonable force." What this means is that if a thief on the street tries to take your wallet and comes at you swinging, you can't just pull a gun and shoot him dead. You need to try to use the mildest method to take care of the problem. In Zimmerman's case, even if Trayvond had truly attacked him first, the reasonable reaction would be to either run away, punch back, and MAYBE you could argue a knife would be acceptable, depending on the conditions. (For example if Zimmerman was an easily excited or frightened person, or if Trayvond had an obvious visual size advantage over Zimmerman) A gun? No no, any court I know of (though again I'm in Germany) would immediately be screaming at him for being so quick to resort to killing. (assuming of course gun ownership were ever an issue here to begin with)

 

 

The old 'disarm and subdue' tactics. When I daydream and think of a situation where someone would attack me, I would go all Bruce Lee and 'chop', 'block', 'kick', 'punch' and the attacker would be face down on the ground while I stand proudly, arms folded, with my foot on his back. The cops arriving, congratulating me on a job well done. 

 

The reality is this is America. An attacker on a quiet street with no one around may have a concealed gun and just shoot you if you offered any resistance, or while running away get a bullet in the back.

[Calax]

In America, the self defense is more "if you fear for our life".  And the Stand Your Ground law is that if you're in a situation, you don't have the requirement of trying to back out as fast as you can.

 

Basically, if the people can make a reasonable assumption that you feared for your life at the moment of the attack,  and your response ended with the death of the other person, you're considered to have been in "self Defense" legally. Admittedly this is my understanding of it as a non-law studying american citizen.

[Walsingham]

@Longknife.

 

I think all you've done is reveal you weren't paying as much attention as you'd like to think.

 

We have self-defence and minimum force in the UK. But having several acquaintances who work in bodyguarding (and just generally watching the news) I'd say it comes back to the judge and jury's interpretation in most cases. A good lawyer defending the killer argues how much they had to lose, and how crazy the deader was to be in the situation in the first place.

 

I am therefore irked by your implication that US law, and US society, is barbaric and perverse. I should like some contextual facts and figures about German prosecutions in similar cases before I'd START WRITING IN MASSIVE LETTERS.

[Nepenthe]

Well look, I'm not like, trying to sit here and say "stupid americans, their legal system sucks"; hell I'm a dual citizen and half-american.

But it just kind of boggles my mind, because even though they're obviously different legal systems, the goals are basically the same and it's more likely the systems would be similar rather than radically different (maybe different in practice but not in results), and yet I sit here wondering why the HELL that court even allowed that crap about labeling Trayvond as a racist on through.

 

But all that aside, like even the case itself, it's truly baffling to see ANYONE hailing Zimmerman as a hero for his actions. It just kind of amazes me how we can go from "let's be reasonable here and try to understand Zimmerman's side" to "good riddance, Trayvond had it coming. How dare he buy skittles?!"

 

No, no. I see your point. I have a similar viewpoint (Finnish system, our jurists were, and still are, heavily influenced by Germans), I'm just a lot more cynical these days. I joined a country practice some months ago, and I've seen the sort of injustices happen I didn't think possible based on my Big Law/research past.

[Longknife]

In America, the self defense is more "if you fear for our life".  And the Stand Your Ground law is that if you're in a situation, you don't have the requirement of trying to back out as fast as you can.

 

Basically, if the people can make a reasonable assumption that you feared for your life at the moment of the attack,  and your response ended with the death of the other person, you're considered to have been in "self Defense" legally. Admittedly this is my understanding of it as a non-law studying american citizen.

 

I know, as I said I'm a dual-citizen. And as such, I think one thing I've come to learn to do is criticize the US when Germany does it better and vice versa. For example, bureocracies in any country are just annoying as hell, but German bureocracies are easily worse. Likewise, I'd rather deal with a German cop over an American cop any day of the week. In the US you get this guy on an ego trip walking up to your car with a hand on his god damn pistol holster (cause that's totally neccesary), in Germany you get this nice, reasonable guy that was basically required to do a decent amount of law studies himself with his pistol actually locked in place, meaning if I WERE to pull a gun on him I'd have such a huge advantage because it'd take him a couple seconds to even get his out. That right there kinda summons up the difference in attitude, as "if you fear for your life" doesn't quite translate over here as well. It does, but I think the cultural attitude is a bit different and therefore it'd sway in the other direction more often.

 

 

  Regardless, as I've said, the issue is more with how it is from an objective, purely legal perspective. I simply struggle to believe that the same conditions German law has about how you can't PROVOKE danger and then claim self-defense doesn't exist in the US. There's even a specific condition for if you provoke danger but then realize you're in over your head and now scared as hell, iirc. (been a bit since I've worked specifically with self-defense as the main focus, but pretty sure that's there)

 

@Longknife.

 

I think all you've done is reveal you weren't paying as much attention as you'd like to think.

 

We have self-defence and minimum force in the UK. But having several acquaintances who work in bodyguarding (and just generally watching the news) I'd say it comes back to the judge and jury's interpretation in most cases. A good lawyer defending the killer argues how much they had to lose, and how crazy the deader was to be in the situation in the first place.

 

I am therefore irked by your implication that US law, and US society, is barbaric and perverse. I should like some contextual facts and figures about German prosecutions in similar cases before I'd START WRITING IN MASSIVE LETTERS.

 

Of course the lawyers and courts and jury matter. However, there's a difference between a good lawyer managing to make a good case for a client, and a court actually allowing the defendant to bring up that Trayvond might be racist, as if it's at all relevant to the case. The lawyer's JOB is to see to it that his client is represented well, the judge? The court itself? The judge is supposed to make sure the case is fair, on-track, objective and relevant. That kind of stuff should've gotten weeded out before we're even in the court, and yet Trayvond potentially being racist and using racial slurs came up as if it mattered at all.

 

THAT'S the part that gets me. The lawyer's job, in a way, encourages him to attempt bringing such issues to court; I'm not knocking the defense attorney. The court itself though? Absolutely.

 

And I think you misunderstood me. Never claimed self-defense and minimum force don't exist in the UK, was simply naming an example I recalled where the legal systems had dramatically different results. And as I recall, part of their point was how the system the UK uses is dramatically different because it tends to rely on case law more. But that seems to speak against the outcome of the case even more, cause I recall seeing a statistic about the hypocrisy and unpredictability of when Stand your Ground incitement is justified or not; if I can find that statistic again, I'll post it here.

[Guard Dog]

@Longknife: Great post. But Stand Your Ground was never an issue because Zimmerman was on his back being pummeled when he shot Martin. Now granted he did get out of his truck to follow Martin but to convict him of manslaughter ( I think everyone agrees 2nd Degree Murder was never appropriate) based on that would mean that walking down the sidewalk of the private community that you lived in was a criminal act. Had this been on a public street somewhere in town then I think that a manslaughter conviction would have been a slam dunk. 

[Walsingham]

OK, well thanks for clarifying your point.

 

Were you aware that we have special sentences in the UK for 'racially aggravated' crimes? It's a relatively new development, and one which I feel represents the worst excesses of Parliament in this generation.

 

The problem is that our criminal justice system is stretched so thin that we have made prioritisation of certain crimes a priority in law. It's complete lunacy.

[Volourn]

I think murder is murder no matter the motivation. It shouldn't matter if someone committed murder over money, romance troubles, race, or any other reason.

[ravenshrike]

As someone who's studied (German) Law, this case is baffling to me for a couple reasons.

 

The first is that in German law and I'd ASSUME American law as well, you're not allowed to claim "self-defense" if you yourself incited or provoked the confrontation. You can't pick a fight or provoke one and then yell "self-defense" just because they swung first. The simple fact that Zimmerman chose to follow and approach a man he himself believed to be a potential threat even after the cops told him it wasn't neccesary? Zimmerman should have a difficult time claiming self-defense because of that alone. This is sort of why cops are so against vigilante justice, because yes, aside from the obvious endangerment of yourself in the situation itself, charging head-on into danger can actually make things more difficult for you in court, because now we have to examine if you overstepped your boundaries as a citizen and somehow caused the situation to escalate.

 

The second thing, and I assume the Stand-Your-Ground law kinda makes this moot, is that another condition for self defense is that you use "reasonable force." What this means is that if a thief on the street tries to take your wallet and comes at you swinging, you can't just pull a gun and shoot him dead. You need to try to use the mildest method to take care of the problem. In Zimmerman's case, even if Trayvond had truly attacked him first, the reasonable reaction would be to either run away, punch back, and MAYBE you could argue a knife would be acceptable, depending on the conditions. (For example if Zimmerman was an easily excited or frightened person, or if Trayvond had an obvious visual size advantage over Zimmerman) A gun? No no, any court I know of (though again I'm in Germany) would immediately be screaming at him for being so quick to resort to killing. (assuming of course gun ownership were ever an issue here to begin with)

 

 

As I said, the second might be moot entirely, but what amazes me is to simply know that if this case had taken place in any other modern country, Zimmerman would've been convicted of manslaughter. It's the kind of case that gets attention because it's a fringe case that highlights a CLEAR difference in the judicial system in states that have Stand Your Ground law. I remember in one of my very first classes, we were given an old case highlighting that a group of men convicted of manslaughter in the Britain would've been found innocent in Germany, because the reason they killed the person they did was because they were stranded at sea and at some point, decided that UNLESS they kill and eat their friend that was significantly weaker/sicker/closer to death than them, they were all going to die, and Germany ruled that as a form of self-defense/preservation whereas the Britain did not.

   That was kind of a shock for us cause it was like "wow, they'd still be alive if they just had a different country," and here it's "wow Zimmerman would be behind bars if he lived basically anywhere else."

 

 

 

 

 

Finally, and this kind of baffles me....

I saw snippets of the case where they were trying to point out Trayvond as a racist.

 

What the **** does this matter?

 

Listen, if I shoot a guy I believe to be my old college professor who I hate and I want him dead for no other reason than that he flunked me out of a class and I hate him for it, but as it turns out, the person I was aiming at was actually Adolf Hitler and I was mistaken, this does NOT excuse me for being guilty of murder. I had no idea it was Hitler; my intent was that of a criminal and a man lies dead so objectively I've succeeded in commiting murder. It's the same thing here: Zimmerman had no idea who Trayvond was, had no way of hearing anything Trayvond said and wouldn't know if Trayvond was a racist, a drug dealer, a murderer or a man who lights kittens on fire in his free time. To him, Trayvond was just "some black kid," so the entire issue of Trayvond being racist or not is highly irrelevant.

   I'm not so much surprised the prosecution would try including something like that anyways, I am however surprised the judge and the court allowed such irrelevant BS to make it into court. That? That truly amazes me.

 

 

 

And of course the last thing that baffles me is how people can hail Zimmerman as a hero. Again, even IF we were to find out tomorrow that Trayvond planned on blowing up a school or something, that doesn't make Zimmerman a hero. He did what he did for all the wrong reasons. At best, you can excuse Zimmerman and argue what he did was "reasonable" (AKA it's sad circumstances, but Zimmerman reacted reasonably and simply feared for his life), but a hero? At worst, he's a highly negligent, overzealous coward without a grip on reality who just shot a kid because his heroism fantasy came crashing down on him in the form of harsh reality; why is THIS view not more common? Not saying people SHOULD view him that way, but between hero and coward, I'd definitely opt for the latter.

Thus proving you've ignored everything about this case and several very hepful links within the thread.

 

Item 1 - Zimmerman did not choose to approach Martin. Trys to follow having lost Martin for 20-30 seconds after being asked "where's he going" by the dispatcher and then stopping AFTER the dispatcher says "we don't need you to do that" in reference to his attempt to follow(neither of which have a relevence to the law as dispatch services only offer advice which reduces their personal liability). Between this point in the conversation and when according to the prosecution's star witness MARTIN confronts Zimmerman, 4 minutes pass. Last Z saw of M, he took off running. From where he took off running the house he was staying at was less than 200 yards away. That means that given where the debris field started, M came back looking for Z having had ample time to make it to his house and say... call the cops. Thus, any prospective burden of confrontation, even in German law, rests solely on M's shoulders.

 

Item 2 - SYG law never had anything to do with the case. Never did. It was a controversy drummed up by anti-gun and race baiting **** to make the story seem more in favor of Martin.

 

Item 3 - By the time Z pulled his gun and shot M, he had been on the ground screaming for help for 30-40 seconds. His face was being smashed in and head bashed against a concrete sidewalk. If he knew ANYTHING about head injuries at all he would know that if that continued serious injury or death had a pretty good chance of being the result. He had seen one guy come outside, but rather than pull the M off him, he just went back inside to call the cops. It wasn't until after all that occured that Z pulled his gun and shot M. Moreover, according to Z, because he was attempting to shimmy his head from the concrete to the grass the waistband of his shirt rode up and his gun in the IWB holster became visible to M, at which point M said "you're gonna die tonight MF" and attempted to go for the gun. Z then gets control of the gun and shoots once.

[Zoraptor]

Thus proving you've ignored everything about this case and several very hepful links within the thread.

 

Item 1 - Zimmerman did not choose to approach Martin. Trys to follow having lost Martin for 20-30 seconds after being asked "where's he going" by the dispatcher and then stopping AFTER the dispatcher says "we don't need you to do that" in reference to his attempt to follow(neither of which have a relevence to the law as dispatch services only offer advice which reduces their personal liability). Between this point in the conversation and when according to the prosecution's star witness MARTIN confronts Zimmerman, 4 minutes pass. Last Z saw of M, he took off running. From where he took off running the house he was staying at was less than 200 yards away. That means that given where the debris field started, M came back looking for Z having had ample time to make it to his house and say... call the cops. Thus, any prospective burden of confrontation, even in German law, rests solely on M's shoulders.

Item 1: Yes Zim did, he got out of his car and followed him. We have no idea what Zimmerman did between hanging up the 911 call and the altercation, but he definitely had enough time to get back to his car- or to go off looking for that "****ing punk" that "always gets away". But despite it being "****ing cold" and raining he hung around an extra 2 minutes in- supposedly- exactly the same place...

 

Now, there's no proof Zim did decide to reconvene his pursuit. But Zim had opportunity to do so and was clearly motivated to do so as well, there's just no proof since the only other witness is dead. If he did, your whole argument reverses.

 

Item 2 - SYG law never had anything to do with the case. Never did. It was a controversy drummed up by anti-gun and race baiting **** to make the story seem more in favor of Martin.

 

Item 2: Oh ffs. Stand your ground is relevant, Zim just did not use it as an affirmed defence so there was no hearing on the matter. He still has the SYG provisions available though, to whit:

 

"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony"

 

Yeah, it's a different text style and may be slightly difficult to read, because it's copied direct from the judge's instructions.

 

 

Item 3 - By the time Z pulled his gun and shot M, he had been on the ground screaming for help for 30-40 seconds. His face was being smashed in and head bashed against a concrete sidewalk. If he knew ANYTHING about head injuries at all he would know that if that continued serious injury or death had a pretty good chance of being the result. He had seen one guy come outside, but rather than pull the M off him, he just went back inside to call the cops. It wasn't until after all that occured that Z pulled his gun and shot M. Moreover, according to Z, because he was attempting to shimmy his head from the concrete to the grass the waistband of his shirt rode up and his gun in the IWB holster became visible to M, at which point M said "you're gonna die tonight MF" and attempted to go for the gun. Z then gets control of the gun and shoots once.

 He was so terrified of immediate injury he never even sought (nor needed) proper medical attention for the "smashed in" face and "bashed" head. And, of course, the still open question is who initiated the conflict and whether Martin was simply standing his ground and that being "attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself".

 

After all, Zim reaching for his gun- and arguably carrying one at all when pursuing a minor, on a dark night- denotes an intent to use deadly force as well. It's why SYG is so moronic, it gives an advantage to whoever it is draws first and kills the other.

 

[Walsingham]

I don't follow your last point, Zor. What do you mean it favours who kills first? Surely it favours whoever is standing on 'their' ground?

 

~

 

Can I just confirm that the young man attacked Zimmerman?

 

If Zimmerman had been in pursuit with his weapon presented for firing, it strikes me as unlikely that Martin would have attempted to attack him at all. If he did not have the weapon presented then it strikes me as a decidedly sporting way of approaching someone you wanted to shoot.

[alanschu]

 

 

What do you mean it favours who kills first? Surely it favours whoever is standing on 'their' ground?

 

Because in the event of no witnesses, if someone kills someone and can convince others that it was indeed an act of self-defense, SYG applies.