This George Zimmerman thing

[Walsingham]

I'm going to declare Running With Scissors and tag out of this one.

 

If you're in a state where people are privately armed, and you go robbing properties* then you can feel aggrieved - but not unduly surprised - if you get shot.

 

*I'm right in thinking he was, aren't I?

[Guard Dog]

No he was not looking to rob anyone, he was walking home and cut through Zimmerman's community. There is blame to go around here but everyone seems to agree Martin was the one who actually started throwing punches so he bears a large responsibility for what happened.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Hmmm, I wonder if Martin would of had a gun how much things would have been different? It is likely that he would have claimed to have felt threatened by Zimmerman following him, and shot him instead of punching him. Without an accurate recollection of the confrontation(other than Zimmerman, who would not be truthful if he was caustic or aggressive) it seems impossible to lay blame where it is due without any reasonable doubt.

 

 

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

 

Only if there are no witnesses and you kill the other guy.

[Walsingham]

No he was not looking to rob anyone, he was walking home and cut through Zimmerman's community. There is blame to go around here but everyone seems to agree Martin was the one who actually started throwing punches so he bears a large responsibility for what happened.

 

Well, thanks for setting me straight.

[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?

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.

 

 

Thanks for the answers!

 

Combining the 'stand your ground'-law with the evidence presented, i do not see anything else than Zimmerman being not guilty here. 

[Volourn]

 "Prosecution witness Rachel Jeantel, speaking to Piers Morgan on CNN last night, explained that George Zimmerman had misunderstood the beating he was receiving from Trayvon Martin, and so had the jury in his trial. Zimmerman was not facing a potentially life-threatening "bashing," but simply a "whoop-ass."
They don't understand, they understand, "Oh, he would just bash, or was kill." When somebody bash somebody, like, blood people, trust me, in the area I live, that's not bashing. That's just called "whoop-ass." You just got your ass whooped. That's what it is.
It was Zimmerman's own fault for not understanding the cultural context in which he was being attacked.
Morgan tried to save Jeantel's statement by asking her whether Martin would have "whooped ass" in self-defense. But the damage was done. For a split second, the camera caught a member of the audience reacting in shock, her jaw dropping at Jeantel's admission--and her apparent expectation that Zimmerman should have understood the supposed cultural practice of "whoop-ass," rather than acting to protect his own life.

 

That was one of the prosecution's 'star witnesses'. She also admitted to be a racist and a homophobe on the stand.  No wonder they lost. L0L

 

 

P.S. Also, to counter upcoming lawsuits against him, Zimmerman should look into suing a bunch of people who harassed, threatened, smeared his name and did all sorts of nasty things in a blatant attempt to destroy his name. I mean, peeps labeled him white! That's the biggest insult in 2013!!!

Edited July 16, 2013 by Volourn

[ravenshrike]

Part of the fuss seems to be the balance on this. There's another trial just completed where a black woman was sent to jail for a silly number of years for firing a weapon near a guy who was threatening her. So when that's held up as one standard, and then Zimmerman on the other, a guy who from all accounts basically went out, started a fight by verbally harassing a teenager until said kid threw a punch, then when he was losing pulled a gun and shot the kid (who happens to be a black teenager), and he gets away fairly scott free...

Aaaand, no. The only person who said that Zimmerman initiated confrontation changed her story multiple times on the stand and had CLEARLY been heavily coached by the prosecution. Moreover, he waited over 40 seconds before pulling his gun, and according to him that was only after Martin went for it, and then shot at Martin ONCE. While on the ground getting his ass kicked. That's rather remarkable restraint.

 

 

As for your prior example, the woman in question fired the gun in the general direction of her CHILDREN and did so after having got away the first time. Warning shots, no matter what that stupid ****head who is our current Vice President might say, are almost always illegal. The only possible exception I can think of would be threat of mob violence. Moreover, SYG applies to percieved imminent threat. You are not allowed to go away and then come back and shoot at someone.

 

[Volourn]

"the woman in question fired the gun in the general direction of her CHILDREN and did so after having got away the first time. Warning shots, no matter what that stupid ****head who is our current Vice President might say, are almost always illegal. The only possible exception I can think of would be threat of mob violence. Moreover, SYG applies to percieved imminent threat. You are not allowed to go away and then come back and shoot at someone."

 

You are evil. the woman did nothing wrong and she did not shoot in the 'general direction of her children'. That's a blatant lie.  I guess you wanted the husband to murder the wife. That is sick. She should spend ZERO days in prison.

[HoonDing]

[ravenshrike]

 

I make it a rule to avoid wasting my time paying much attention to the news media's periodic obsessions with particular individual criminal cases, and I'm certainly no expert on criminal law in Florida.  But it's a really tough road for prosecutors to get over a self-defense argument when the only living witness to the act is the suspect being tried.  When you need to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it's really hard to get enough evidence that the dead guy didn't somehow put the suspect in a position of reasonable fear.  As such, an acquittal is not surprising.

 

This is the kind of result that you get sometimes when you enact idiotic machismo-driven policy like Florida's "stand your ground" law. 

 

I just replaced my opinion with this one.

 

Except the SYG law had nothing to do with it. All it does is eliminate the duty to retreat if easily possible. As at the time of shooting Zimmerman was being straddled on the grass/concrete, he had no duty to retreat. Not to mention that between the lack of gunpowder burns on Martin's skin but gunpowder burns on the hoodie and Zimmerman's injuries all point to Zimmerman telling the truth even without Good's testimony of Zimmerman being on the bottom.

 

 

 

"the woman in question fired the gun in the general direction of her CHILDREN and did so after having got away the first time. Warning shots, no matter what that stupid ****head who is our current Vice President might say, are almost always illegal. The only possible exception I can think of would be threat of mob violence. Moreover, SYG applies to percieved imminent threat. You are not allowed to go away and then come back and shoot at someone."

 

You are evil. the woman did nothing wrong and she did not shoot in the 'general direction of her children'. That's a blatant lie.  I guess you wanted the husband to murder the wife. That is sick. She should spend ZERO days in prison.

Her husband and the children were on the same side of the kitchen. The bullet ended up in the ceiling of the kitchen on the same side as the husband and the children. She did not fire the warning shot directly in the air but over the head of her husband and thus, given his proximity to the children, in the general direction of the children. Moreover, warning shots are illegal.

 

 

IMPORTANT EDIT - Regarding the Marissa Alexander case, it appears I was wrong. The bullet did not enter the kitchen ceiling. Rather, it went through the kitchen WALL and into the living room ceiling. Which means the bullet would have been aimed a hell of a lot closer at her husband's head.

 

 

If you want to get angry at the Alexander case, get angry at the minimum sentencing law as it allows prosecutors to play judge and jury.

 

 

The "10-20-Life" statutes exclude manslaughter from any minimum sentencing requirements, Assistant State Attorney Mark Caliel confirmed. That means if Alexander had actually killed her husband or one of his sons and been found guilty of manslaughter, she could have instead gotten as little as time served. Caliel said manslaughter should be added into the statutes.

Edited July 16, 2013 by ravenshrike

[ShadySands]

Sorry to nitpick but it's a pet peeve

 

 

Hispanic is an ethnonym that denotes a relationship to Spain or, in some definitions, to ancient Hispania, which comprised the Iberian Peninsula including the modern states of Andorra, Portugal, and Spain and the British Crown Dependency of Gibraltar. Today, organizations in the United States use the term as a broad catch all to refer to persons with a historical and cultural relationship either with Spain and Portugal or only with Spain, regardless of race. However, in the eyes of the US Census Bureau, Hispanics or Latinos can be of any race, any ancestry, or any country of origin. Due to the technical distinctions involved in defining "race" vs. "ethnicity," there is confusion among the general population about the designation of Hispanic identity. Currently, the United States Census Bureau defines five race categories:

• White
• Black or African American
• American Indian or Alaska Native
• Asian
• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

Because Hispanic roots are considered to be aligned with a European ancestry (Spain/Portugal) , the Hispanic/Latino ancestry is defined solely as an ethnic designation (similar to being Norse, Germanic, or Scottish). Therefore, a person of Hispanic descent is typically defined using both race and ethnicity as an identifier—i.e. Black-Hispanic, White-Hispanic, or "other race" Hispanic.

 

As for the actual case I don't see how it could have turned out any different  with only one person living to tell the tale and the evidence matching up well enough to his story. It's a tragedy and probably could have easily been avoided. I just can't muster the outrage that I see in a lot of people over this because in my opinion it was two people looking for a confrontation and they both got more than they bargained for

[alanschu]

 

 

Moreover, warning shots are illegal.

 

So the legal system actually does encourage people to actually shoot other humans in that situation then? (serious question)

 

Shooting other people is illegal as well.  There can be justifications and mitigation for it though, as evidenced in the Zimmerman trial.  Harping on this makes it sound like it's okay to shoot another person in self defense, but not to fire a warning shot in the same situation.  Or, in other words, that the legal system implicitly encourages one to actually potentially kill another human being rather than the alternative.  Because that's the way it looks.  Saying "Firing a warning shot is illegal" doesn't do much since firing a fatal shot is also illegal.

 

You can dispute whether self-defense was applicable (a position I actually lean towards now, as I have read more information), but if it was, is firing a warning shot still illegal, while a fatal shot not?

 

 

 

If you want to get angry at the Alexander case, get angry at the minimum sentencing law as it allows prosecutors to play judge and jury.

 

But you're right, it's an excellent example of how minimum sentencing is often absurd.

[JFSOCC]

He got told not to pursue the kid, and he ignored that, he got into a brawl with a 17 year old, and he felt threatened enough to pull the trigger, racism or not (I'm going with yes, because he racially profiled the kid) he chose to end someone's life when he really didn't have to.

He says there have been a lot of burglaries of late, as if that is ever a reason to kill someone.

 

But then, as much as I think it would be cool to own a gun, I'm for a government monopoly on force. I don't think he should have had a gun in the first place.

[Zoraptor]

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.

Well, Zimmerman apparently thought it was "****ing cold" yet took far longer than necessary to walk to his supposed end point and back, despite the weather- so much so that Martin could cover ~three times the distance at a "slow jog", in ~30 seconds, then walk most of that distance back after talking "a few minutes" just in time to- coincidentally, no doubt- find Zimmerman who had not managed to get back to his car in that time but had actually walked around a third of that distance from his 'end point' (E) towards Martin (F on the map; and away from his car).

 

The link says that Martin covered around 5 times Zimmerman's distance, at either a walk of slow jog, and waited 'a few minutes' talking to his girlfriend yet Zimmerman had moved only around, what, 10 yards? since supposedly stopping his pursuit at roughly the point Martin arrived home, and ending his police call around half way through that 'few minutes' Martin was talking to his girlfriend. So, what was Zimmerman doing for the time it took Martin to talk for x seconds and walk all the way back to where he met Zimmerman? Enjoying the ****ing cold? There's simply no way Zimmerman went back to his vehicle directly or in any timely manner, based on the timings from that link.

 

So, not exactly difficult to knock holes in the narrative- well, except legally, if the guy refuses to take the stand- just impossible to prove any alternative.

[AGX-17]

But that is racial politics interfering with the justice system for you.

Yeah, those afro-americans need to accept the fact that racism is over and there is no racial bias anywhere in the US criminal justice system. The fact that the vast majority of prison inmates in the US are black males is testimony to the inherent negative qualities of their ethnic group and not evidence of an underlying social and systematic bias in America, where racism is over and inequality is solely a result of choices made by perfectly rational individuals in an emotionless vacuum devoid of outside influences aside from the Ivy League-caliber education that all inner-city impoverished youths receive, on account of racism being over.

 

In our perfect system, people who make poor choices do so because they are flawed, inferior individuals, a determination based on their inability to act in accordance with 200 year old economic models of human behavior that, as we all know model, (without 200 years of real sciences producing evidence to the contrary,) every aspect of human behavior.

 

We need to worry about the real victim, George Zimmerman. Like his brother said on TV recently, he fears vigilantes taking the law into their own hands and becoming a threat to the victim's safety.

 

 

Wholly unrelated:

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!

Edited July 16, 2013 by AGX-17

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

We need to worry about the real victim, George Zimmerman. Like his brother said on TV recently, he fears vigilantes taking the law into their own hands and becoming a threat to the victim's safety.

It would be a bit ironic if Zimmerman was shot and killed by someone who felt threatened by him, with no other witness to provide a complete account of the incident.

[Calax]

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

 

Yes, although I think that technically the other guy would get a lesser sentance due to povocation.

[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.

Well, Zimmerman apparently thought it was "****ing cold" yet took far longer than necessary to walk to his supposed end point and back, despite the weather- so much so that Martin could cover ~three times the distance at a "slow jog", in ~30 seconds, then walk most of that distance back after talking "a few minutes" just in time to- coincidentally, no doubt- find Zimmerman who had not managed to get back to his car in that time but had actually walked around a third of that distance from his 'end point' (E) towards Martin (F on the map; and away from his car).

 

The link says that Martin covered around 5 times Zimmerman's distance, at either a walk of slow jog, and waited 'a few minutes' talking to his girlfriend yet Zimmerman had moved only around, what, 10 yards? since supposedly stopping his pursuit at roughly the point Martin arrived home, and ending his police call around half way through that 'few minutes' Martin was talking to his girlfriend. So, what was Zimmerman doing for the time it took Martin to talk for x seconds and walk all the way back to where he met Zimmerman? Enjoying the ****ing cold? There's simply no way Zimmerman went back to his vehicle directly or in any timely manner, based on the timings from that link.

 

So, not exactly difficult to knock holes in the narrative- well, except legally, if the guy refuses to take the stand- just impossible to prove any alternative.

 

Actually the defense claimed Martin first punched Zimmerman where the sidewalks meet, not at F where the body was found, as evidenced by Zimmerman's flash light and another item found at the first location. The fight then moved to location F where Zimmerman was pinned on the ground, as evidenced by other items found scattered along the way. The elapsed time was established at trial as being around 4 minutes, 2 of which Zimmerman spent talking to the police as evidenced by the phone recording. How to account for all of the other 2 minutes I'm not sure, but it's possible Zimmerman looked around some more before he went back to the car. He couldn't have been at Martin's house since he didn't even know he lived in the neighborhood, let alone where his house was, and from him talking to the police we know he couldn't have run after Martin, so he wouldn't be able to see him in the dark until they encountered again at the sidewalk T.

[Hurlshort]

If you believe the defense or the prosecution in these cases, you are doing it wrong.  The answers are somewhere in between.

[Wrath of Dagon]

No, what you have to do is look at the facts, not "believe".

 

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

I think it would depend on who tried to use deadly force first.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

No, what you have to do is look at the facts, not "believe".

And the facts are far from conclusive. There is no record of what interaction Zimmerman and Martin had before Martin started punching him. Judging from Zimmerman's comments during his police call and Martin's comments talking to his(girl?)friend, both were likely to treat the other party with hostility, so an unfriendly exchange could easily occurred between the two before things got physical. We can not prove who started the fight, if either party tried to provoke the other, or anything other than that Martin was kicking Zimmerman's ass before he was shot.

[Guard Dog]

 

But that is racial politics interfering with the justice system for you.

Yeah, those afro-americans need to accept the fact that racism is over and there is no racial bias anywhere in the US criminal justice system. The fact that the vast majority of prison inmates in the US are black males is testimony to the inherent negative qualities of their ethnic group and not evidence of an underlying social and systematic bias in America, where racism is over and inequality is solely a result of choices made by perfectly rational individuals in an emotionless vacuum devoid of outside influences aside from the Ivy League-caliber education that all inner-city impoverished youths receive, on account of racism being over.

 

In our perfect system, people who make poor choices do so because they are flawed, inferior individuals, a determination based on their inability to act in accordance with 200 year old economic models of human behavior that, as we all know model, (without 200 years of real sciences producing evidence to the contrary,) every aspect of human behavior.

 

We need to worry about the real victim, George Zimmerman. Like his brother said on TV recently, he fears vigilantes taking the law into their own hands and becoming a threat to the victim's safety.

 

 

Wholly unrelated:

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!

 

Oh give me a break. Think about this for a second. If George Zimmerman were black and Trayvon Martin were white and everything else was exactly the same this would NEVER have seen the inside of a courtroom. And if by chance it did it would have gone down the exact same way, with an acquittal. The only difference is it would never have made the news outside of North Florida because there would have been no political hay to make.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

No, what you have to do is look at the facts, not "believe".

And the facts are far from conclusive. There is no record of what interaction Zimmerman and Martin had before Martin started punching him. Judging from Zimmerman's comments during his police call and Martin's comments talking to his(girl?)friend, both were likely to treat the other party with hostility, so an unfriendly exchange could easily occurred between the two before things got physical. We can not prove who started the fight, if either party tried to provoke the other, or anything other than that Martin was kicking Zimmerman's ass before he was shot.

 

But we know Martin came back towards Zimmerman's car, and the only plausible reason would be to confront Zimmerman, if Martin just kept running home, nothing would've happened. For defense purposes of course it doesn't matter so long as the jury strictly follows the law, all you need is some evidence it was self defense and reasonable doubt. But to determine if Zimmerman was morally culpable, we do have this extra evidence. Edited July 17, 2013 by Wrath of Dagon

[Zoraptor]

He couldn't have been at Martin's house since he didn't even know he lived in the neighborhood, let alone where his house was, and from him talking to the police we know he couldn't have run after Martin, so he wouldn't be able to see him in the dark until they encountered again at the sidewalk T.

 

If he had two free minutes, he could easily have got to Martin's house and back (there's no evidence he did though) since that is what everyone agrees Martin did, with a break to talk to his girlfriend at or around his house. When you only have one living witness and it's the guy accused it's very difficult to establish the truth about such things, but it certainly appears to be fact that Zimmerman had ample time, and opportunity, to get back to his car to wait for the police but it was only a few yards from where he had stopped where the incident occurred despite the weather conditions being unpleasant enough to warrant comment. It may not be fact but it is very likely that if Zimmerman simply returned to his vehicle, even at a slow pace, and waited for police then the last part of the incident would not have happened.

 

If Zimmerman had been poking around further and still looking for Martin- which seems pretty likely to me given Zimmerman's obvious agitation, and provides a reason why he didn't go back to his warm dry truck- then Martin's feeling of being stalked by a creepy dude has more justification, with or without anything else Z may have said or done. The defence narrative was not proven to be false, but at the same time it was also not proven to be any sort of absolute truth either and will naturally seek to omit anything that puts Z in a potentially negative light, which would include things like trying to find Martin after being asked/ told not to in that missing two minutes.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

But we know Martin came back towards Zimmerman's car, and the only plausible reason would be to confront Zimmerman, if Martin just kept running home, nothing would've happened.

Here is the crux of the problem, we have no idea why Martin and Zimmerman got into a confrontation, who instigated the confrontation, or anything other than the result of the confrontation. The evidence we do have can not prove anything other than the result of their scuffle, but it could be used to knock holes in the prosecution's narrative.

Edited July 17, 2013 by KaineParker