This George Zimmerman thing

[Meshugger]

I haven't followed the details about this case that much. Can anyone answer?

 

1) How tall and fit was Martin? Was he training in wrestling, football or whatnot?

2) Same as the first, but for Zimmerman.

3) Were there any other witnesses to this altercation? Even indirectly?

4) What does the law "Stand your ground" law mean in Florida?

[alanschu]

I believe Stand Your Ground allows the use of force to defend yourself without consideration for attempting to escape the situation first.

 

So you don't need to prove you had no other alternative.

[Malcador]

The juxtaposition of the case where a woman apparently gets 20 years in jail for intentionally firing a warning shot rather than shooting to kill.

 

Kill someone, probably get away fine as per Enoch's post.  Spare their life, get 20 years!  Woo!

Well, she claims it was a warning shot. But still, does point of some flaws in that law and the idea of mandatory sentencing.

[babaganoosh13]

I'm at that age, that I call college students, kids. High school students certainly fit that mold.

 

If Zimmerman didn't have the gun on him, he probably would have done what he was told when he called the cops. They would have came, seen that there was nothing, and moved on. Life goes on for everybody.

 

Instead he went looking for trouble, caused it, and he killed a teenager.

[Hurlshort]

We also should not forget that there will likely still be a civil case against Zimmerman brought forward by the family of Martin, and I would not be surprised to see Zimmerman lose that.

[Walsingham]

To my understanding the key point here is proving Zimmerman acted with intent or negligence to kill. Proving that beyond reasonable doubt strikes me as being just as hard as other posters have already said.

 

 

 

Anecdotal aside: I once acted to try and stop an ongoing burglary. I was so excited that although I gave a perfect description of the suspect I couldn't remember my own name!

[Guard Dog]

Martin's family would have a real good chance of winning a civil trial against him but it would be a Pyrrhic victory at best. Zimmerman was only a working class guy to begin with. He was never rich. Now he's lost his job and any future earning power and sold his home to pay for his defense. They might win and have nothing to show for it but satisfaction. Not many lawyers would sign up for that.

[Malcador]

Maybe they should wait until he signs a book deal.

[Volourn]

"Was there an explanation during the trial for why a big man like Zimmerman couldn't overpower a 15/17-year old?"

 

The 17 year old was said to be in much betetr shape.

 

The civil trial is sucha  dumb idea. If someone is found i9nnocent they shouldn't be able to be dragged to some lesser court where proof doesn't  really matter.

 

Plus, the Federal Court and crap are trhetaening to jump in because they didn't get the result they wanted and need to do something to prove the PC crap.

[Gfted1]

Plus, the Federal Court and crap are trhetaening to jump in because they didn't get the result they wanted and need to do something to prove the PC crap.

That's what bothers me most. This dude is going to get railroaded no matter how many bars have to be lowered. I knew the prosecution lost the minute they asked the judge to allow the jury to also consider Manslaughter. I don't think they should be able to do that mid-trial either.

[Hurlshort]

I don't know, if you clearly have a faulty prosecution team, don't you think there should be some fallback plan for justice?  I mean people who get convicted have a ton of ways to appeals their verdict, so shouldn't their be a way to appeal an innocent verdict?

 

I can see where it sounds like a nightmare though, getting declared innocent and then repeating the process over again.

[Volourn]

 The problem is they only plan to step in because of the media hype/PC crap.  Just look at the idiots claiming this was  ahate crime of white on black when Zimmeran isn't even white. No way would the KKK accept Zimmerman in their group.

 

The only time I think the state should get a 'second chance' if there's actual new evidence that could be seen to have a shot at reasonably changing the jurors' decision. This is just an act of a butthurt Federal punk.

[Amentep]

I don't know, if you clearly have a faulty prosecution team, don't you think there should be some fallback plan for justice?  I mean people who get convicted have a ton of ways to appeals their verdict, so shouldn't their be a way to appeal an innocent verdict?

 

I can see where it sounds like a nightmare though, getting declared innocent and then repeating the process over again.

 

The verdict of not guilty can be overturned in the case of jury tampering.

 

Otherwise the system has always been to let the guilty to go free rather than let the innocent go to jail (in theory).

[Elerond]

I don't know, if you clearly have a faulty prosecution team, don't you think there should be some fallback plan for justice?  I mean people who get convicted have a ton of ways to appeals their verdict, so shouldn't their be a way to appeal an innocent verdict?

 

I can see where it sounds like a nightmare though, getting declared innocent and then repeating the process over again.

 

In Finland we have three tier court system, first tier is local courts which verdicts both parties can appeal to court of appeals, which decions are usually final, but in some cases those verdicts, for example precedence cases, can be appealed to supreme court. This systems problem is that sometimes cases can last years before final verdict.

[Malcador]

The federal charge might be a hate crime ? Isn't that roughly as difficult as proving the second degree charge in terms of proving malice?

[Tale]

The juxtaposition of the case where a woman apparently gets 20 years in jail for intentionally firing a warning shot rather than shooting to kill.

 

Kill someone, probably get away fine as per Enoch's post.  Spare their life, get 20 years!  Woo!

I just checked on that because it sounded ridiculous.

 

It seems the women who got 20 years left the house to get the gun, then returned. In which case, I definitely see the argument that it was assault. She could have simply left.

 

The Zimmerman issue here is yes, Zimmerman could have not followed Martin, in fact was instructed not to. But the second Martin attacked Zimmerman, he could not have left. At that one point, there was no real choice.

[babaganoosh13]

I don't buy that a kid with no priors would all of a sudden attack someone for no good reason. My guess is that a guy that does have a previous history of violence and racism initiated the whole thing.

[Calax]

I don't know, if you clearly have a faulty prosecution team, don't you think there should be some fallback plan for justice?  I mean people who get convicted have a ton of ways to appeals their verdict, so shouldn't their be a way to appeal an innocent verdict?

 

I can see where it sounds like a nightmare though, getting declared innocent and then repeating the process over again.

Fifth Amendment sayth unto the "HELL NO!" as that's considered double jepordy. Otherwise Michael Jackson woudl have been in court for his entire life to fight off all of the various "appeals for justice" thrown at his name.

[alanschu]

 

The juxtaposition of the case where a woman apparently gets 20 years in jail for intentionally firing a warning shot rather than shooting to kill.

 

Kill someone, probably get away fine as per Enoch's post.  Spare their life, get 20 years!  Woo!

Well, she claims it was a warning shot. But still, does point of some flaws in that law and the idea of mandatory sentencing.

 

 

It's tragic because she was offered a 3 year pleabargin and didn't take it because she didn't feel she did anything wrong.

 

It's also interesting because the husband, in his disposition, states that she shot into the air one time.  In the 911 call, however, he said "she shot at us."  It seems to me that the jurors (and the prosecution) are holding that up as being a stronger likelihood of the events.

 

The jury only took 15 minutes to come to the guilty verdict, however, and given the mandatory sentencing requirements, she must serve 20 years due to it being a crime that involved a gun.

 

 

 

 

I just checked on that because it sounded ridiculous.

 

It seems the women who got 20 years left the house to get the gun, then returned. In which case, I definitely see the argument that it was assault. She could have simply left.

 

The Zimmerman issue here is yes, Zimmerman could have not followed Martin, in fact was instructed not to. But the second Martin attacked Zimmerman, he could not have left. At that one point, there was no real choice.

 

I can understand this not allowing "Stand Your Ground" from holding up.  I read a different link that stated that the large garage door was inoperable, and as such she was stuck with the only option of returning to the house (since the gun was in her car).

 

The messed up part is still that the husband validated the story in his deposition, but then later said he lied to protect his wife.

Edited July 15, 2013 by alanschu

[Wrath of Dagon]

I haven't followed the details about this case that much. Can anyone answer?

 

1) How tall and fit was Martin? Was he training in wrestling, football or whatnot?

2) Same as the first, but for Zimmerman.

3) Were there any other witnesses to this altercation? Even indirectly?

4) What does the law "Stand your ground" law mean in Florida?

1) He was 5'11" and very fit. From his texts he liked to fight and bragged about knowing how to sucker punch people and make them bleed.

 

2) Zimmerman is 5'7.5", about 200 pounds and quite unfit according to his gym instructor

 

3) Yes, there was a guy who saw Martin on top pounding Zimmerman, and Zimmerman yelling for help. There were also other witnesses who heard the fight and saw things right after the shot.

 

4) It means you are not required to try to escape when threatened, and can use deadly force if you reasonably believe your life is in danger. This is moot in this case since Zimmerman was pinned on the ground and couldn't escape.

 

Also, can't people read around here? I already said and posted evidence that Zimmerman couldn't have been following Martin, it had to be as Zimmerman said, he was returning to his car when Martin circled back and jumped him.

 

As far as double jeopardy, yes the Federal government can still charge Zimmerman with violating Martin's civil rights, even though an FBI investigation already determined there was no racial bias involved.

 

As far as a civil suite, my understanding is under Florida law you have immunity from civil liability if you can show by preponderance of evidence it was self defense. Of course I don't know what the various subtleties may be.

 

 

I don't buy that a kid with no priors would all of a sudden attack someone for no good reason. My guess is that a guy that does have a previous history of violence and racism initiated the whole thing.

No priors because it was covered up : http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/05/01/m-dspd-cover-up-the-curious-case-of-trayvon-martins-backpack-with-stolen-jewelry-and-burglary-tool/

In fact he was with his father because he was once again suspended from school at the time.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Wrath of Dagon

[Zoraptor]

Also, can't people read around here? I already said and posted evidence that Zimmerman couldn't have been following Martin, it had to be as Zimmerman said, he was returning to his car when Martin circled back and jumped him.

 

People can read, you're just telling a story of one way it may have happened, which is actually all Zimmerman had to do as well. There's nothing even slightly definitive about Zimmerman's overall story being true and there are plenty of ways that are either perfectly reasonable with respect to Martin or aren't flattering to Zimmerman about how they could have ended near his car- Martin deciding to go back and get his licence plate after being stalked by a creepy older male, parked up in his truck, watching him from the darkness, getting out and following him- for example- or Zimmerman being less than truthful about any extra provocation being given or who initiated the physical confrontation.

 

Since Martin is dead and without any directly contradicting evidence being apparent the jury has to accept Zimmerman's version, but that doesn't make it true, only not disprovable.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Zoraptor

[Wrath of Dagon]

So he's being stalked by a stranger, yet goes back in the darkness to get the license plate instead of calling the police? Also he was on the phone with his friend, and never mentioned doing anything like that. The theory must be plausible, not "Martians did it". But even if he did go back just to check the license plate, it still shows Zimmerman couldn't have been following him or the confrontation would've happened 4 minutes earlier, or do you think they both made a very slow circuit back to Zimmerman's car?

[Zoraptor]

But even if he did go back just to check the license plate, it still shows Zimmerman couldn't have been following him or the confrontation would've happened 4 minutes earlier, or do you think they both made a very slow circuit back to Zimmerman's car?

 

 

Dunno. Why did it take Zimmerman 4 minutes to get back to his car if all he did was walk, what, 30/ 50/ 100 yards, then back? That's one very pedestrian pedestrian, enjoying a quiet ramble on a wet and windy (and asterisking cold, apparently) night. Zimmerman may not have to prove his version correct, just plausible, but that also does not make what he says actual fact.

 

And we have Zimmerman's word that he followed Martin somewhat since he admitted it (hence the whole "we don't need you to do that" from the dispatcher), the only point of contention is how much he followed; and his girlfriend's testimony supports that he at least felt he was still being followed/ thought Zimmerman was "creepy".

[Wrath of Dagon]

By "following", he meant he went to see if he could see where Martin had run, since by that time Martin had run off already. He spent about 2 minutes talking on the phone to the police dispatcher, after he hung up he turned around and went back to his car, it's in the timeline I posted earlier.

 

Btw, there's a good interview with one of the jurors with Anderson Cooper on CNN tonight.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Wrath of Dagon

[HoonDing]

Can you claim self-defense if you pick a fight, then get your ass kicked?