State v Zimmerman

[Seth]

Zimmerman instigated the conflict and then felt he had to shoot Martin to keep from getting seriously hurt. I guess it's unremarkable that some people don't see Martin as a victim prior to his attacking Zimmerman, or even after being shot dead, but it's still disappointing. I've always felt that most people don't like instigators. In fact I can't recall off the top of my head ever hearing someone say about the victim of an instigator that they could have just run away, at least not when they've chosen to do otherwise. Yet in this case Martin not only chose to do otherwise but ended up shot dead because of it, and yet the instigator is now in the eyes of some something of a hero. It's disappointing.

Zimmerman was exercising his right to move freely about his own community and his right to engage another person in a conversation that was not, by any rational measure, a trigger for an attempt at lethal violence some minutes later.

If Zimmerman had used "fighting words" and Martin hand punched him out in fury AT THE TIME it would be a different story, but there is no evidence that Zimmerman did so.

Therefore Zimmerman did NOT "instigate the conflict." He was going about his lawful occasions under the presumption that asking a question of a stranger in his community is not justification for a violent attack.

[Seth]

Zimmerman instigated the conflict and then felt he had to shoot Martin to keep from getting seriously hurt. I guess it's unremarkable that some people don't see Martin as a victim prior to his attacking Zimmerman, or even after being shot dead, but it's still disappointing. I've always felt that most people don't like instigators. In fact I can't recall off the top of my head ever hearing someone say about the victim of an instigator that they could have just run away, at least not when they've chosen to do otherwise. Yet in this case Martin not only chose to do otherwise but ended up shot dead because of it, and yet the instigator is now in the eyes of some something of a hero. It's disappointing.

The legal argument is that Martin could have simply not spent 40 seconds smacking the crap out of Zimmerman. Being stalked, being confronted, even being scared are not LEGAL excuses to resort to force. He made a choice to do that, and that choice (while it should NOT have led to his death) is what let Zimmerman get off the charges.

If not for that, Zimmerman would have been charged IMMIDIATELY.

Basically, Zimmerman was a fucking negligent wannabe cowboy, but his mistake was legally negated by Martin's choice to jump on him. Two wrongs don't make a right, nor do they make a felony.

He didn't make a "mistake," he did what ANY law-abiding citizen has full authority to do to ANY person they come upon in their community...or anywhere else for that matter. Just because you think he should have minded his own business doesn't mean he was NOT minding his own business, which happened to be patrolling the community to reduce and prevent theft, something that ANYONE can and is legally authorized to do.

[Warren Dew]

@ Sean: I think the evidence shows that Zimmerman instigated the contact, but not necessarily the conflict. That difference isn't trivial.

I don't think Zimmerman even instigated the contact. He says he lost Martin and started back to his truck; Martin's girlfriend confirms the loss of contact. When contact is regained, Martin's girlfriend reports that Martin spoke first, not Zimmerman.

[FBM]

@ Sean: I think the evidence shows that Zimmerman instigated the contact, but not necessarily the conflict. That difference isn't trivial.

I don't think Zimmerman even instigated the contact. He says he lost Martin and started back to his truck; Martin's girlfriend confirms the loss of contact. When contact is regained, Martin's girlfriend reports that Martin spoke first, not Zimmerman.

Ah. I didn't know that. Tbh, I haven't been following the case all that closely. My earlier posts were about how poorly people at both extremes were processing the information.

[Seth]

@ Sean: I think the evidence shows that Zimmerman instigated the contact, but not necessarily the conflict. That difference isn't trivial.

I don't think Zimmerman even instigated the contact. He says he lost Martin and started back to his truck; Martin's girlfriend confirms the loss of contact. When contact is regained, Martin's girlfriend reports that Martin spoke first, not Zimmerman.

That's what people don't seem to understand. The break in any direct physical presence that occurred when Martin ran away and Zimmerman lost view of him "reset the clock" so to speak when it comes to determining who instigated what.

Therefore Martin's SECOND encounter with Zimmerman was fomented by Martin himself, which makes him the "initial aggressor."

[Daedalus]

Zimmerman instigated the conflict and then felt he had to shoot Martin to keep from getting seriously hurt. I guess it's unremarkable that some people don't see Martin as a victim prior to his attacking Zimmerman, or even after being shot dead, but it's still disappointing. I've always felt that most people don't like instigators. In fact I can't recall off the top of my head ever hearing someone say about the victim of an instigator that they could have just run away, at least not when they've chosen to do otherwise. Yet in this case Martin not only chose to do otherwise but ended up shot dead because of it, and yet the instigator is now in the eyes of some something of a hero. It's disappointing.

The legal argument is that Martin could have simply not spent 40 seconds smacking the crap out of Zimmerman. Being stalked, being confronted, even being scared are not LEGAL excuses to resort to force. He made a choice to do that, and that choice (while it should NOT have led to his death) is what let Zimmerman get off the charges.

If not for that, Zimmerman would have been charged IMMIDIATELY.

Basically, Zimmerman was a fucking negligent wannabe cowboy, but his mistake was legally negated by Martin's choice to jump on him. Two wrongs don't make a right, nor do they make a felony.

He didn't make a "mistake," he did what ANY law-abiding citizen has full authority to do to ANY person they come upon in their community...or anywhere else for that matter. Just because you think he should have minded his own business doesn't mean he was NOT minding his own business, which happened to be patrolling the community to reduce and prevent theft, something that ANYONE can and is legally authorized to do.

Weak bait Seth, try again.

[Seth]

Weak bait Seth, try again.

I'm just saying...

[Daedalus]

Weak bait Seth, try again.

I'm just saying...

[FBM]

OK, calm down, everyone. The case has been solved. According to Zimmerman, it was god's plan, so goddidit. Case closed.

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh, I will rant with the next gun case as well. This was all we get on CNN live this year. All gun nuts are the same to me, Z was the average nut.

No big national media blitz about the African American who shot a "white Hispanic" (j/k) in the face after the African American stole $4 -- http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/cri ... -4/2124634

[Coito ergo sum]

I only want FL to remove SYG and concealed weapon permits. Zimmerman can go play cop or bouncer with a club.

Not going to happen. Same thing will happen that did after Newtown, lots of hot air, bunch of talking heads mournfully mouthing platitudes, maybe a couple of people holding up signs. Then business as usual. We like our guns, we like SYG, we like concealed carry. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that's going to change.

Why would anyone want SYG removed anyway?

I mean -- people refuse to accept what it really is, and they seem to think it means you can just shoot people and claim "I was standing my ground."

All it means is that when someone has initiated force such that you have the right to defend yourself with force, you do not have to prove to the jury that you couldn't have run away instead. The reason that is important is that prosecutors end up prosecuting the guy or gal who was defending himself or herself and saying that they didn't have to use the force, they could have split. Then the person who had to act under a split second stressful and violent situation can get convicted because armchair quarterbacks say he or she could have run. SYG prevents injustices.

What the takeaway from this case ought to be is that everyone of us in Florida ought to be really careful not to get into the justice system. Angela Courey, the prosecutor in this case, acted abysmally, unethically, and possibly criminally in prosecuting Zimmerman. They withheld evidence and even filed what appears to be a wilfully false and perjurious probable cause affidavit at the beginning of the case. Then throughout the trial, the prosecution appealed to the jury's passions and prejudices and even in closing they asked the jury to decide the case based on sympathy and outrage.

This should be a wake-up call, yes. But, not for the reasons we hear on news. This is a warning bell to every citizen, as it exposes the reality of prosecutors not seeking justice but grossly over-charging cases and seeking convictions -- seeking "wins."

Zimmerman should sue Angela Courey and the State Attorney's office over that probable cause affidavit. He probably won't, as those folks are big guns and he probably just wants to move on and let it all go. But, he may well have a civil rights case against the State of Florida.

This case really shows another danger too. Law enforcement investigated, and a prosecutor's office evaluated, the case and found that probable cause did not exist and that there was a good self-defense claim. No charges were warranted. As a result of political pressure, the Governor of Florida forced the issue, and they appointed a new prosecutor with directions to bring a case. Not do their job -- rather, bring a case. They then filed an unethical and probably criminal probable cause affidavit, bypassed the grand jury and tried to send this guy up the river. The guy wins after six jurors take one day to think about and find him not guilty on all charges, and now they're thinking about kicking this up to the Department of Justice for Civil Rights violations against Zimmerman. Madness. Utter and complete madness.

[Audley Strange]

I'm increasingly concerned that your media, like ours, are needling away trying to provoke some kind of race riots or war in order to cover it. I know that sounds a bit paranoid but lets be honest, it wouldn't be the first time they've engineered stories to escalate, here or there.

[pErvinalia]

...
What seems to disturb you is the fact that it's lawful to use lethal force against an "unarmed" attacker. Except that Martin was NOT "unarmed." He had two perfectly good arms with fists on the ends, which are without any doubt "deadly weapons" under the right circumstances...like these circumstances.

Where have I even vaguely alluded that it bothers me that it's legal to use lethal force against an unarmed attacker? It doesn't and never has. I suspect you're doing exactly what I actually was complaining about, viz, letting your political bias cloud your reasoning, which in this case has somehow led you to think I was talking about self-defense laws at all. I wasn't.

Maybe so. For that I apologize. I guess my comment is directed more at the simpering liberal panty-waists who think that criminals deserve consideration and safety while plying their trade.

As is the case with all your rants. You don't actually listen to what your fellow debater is saying.

Regarding this case, I haven't really followed it much. Is there a somewhat agreed upon set of facts about the event? From what I understand Zimmerman was doing neighbourhood watch, and confronted Martin and they got in a fight and Z shot M. Is that the gist of it? Any specifics that are more or less confirmed?

[Coito ergo sum]

...
What seems to disturb you is the fact that it's lawful to use lethal force against an "unarmed" attacker. Except that Martin was NOT "unarmed." He had two perfectly good arms with fists on the ends, which are without any doubt "deadly weapons" under the right circumstances...like these circumstances.

Where have I even vaguely alluded that it bothers me that it's legal to use lethal force against an unarmed attacker? It doesn't and never has. I suspect you're doing exactly what I actually was complaining about, viz, letting your political bias cloud your reasoning, which in this case has somehow led you to think I was talking about self-defense laws at all. I wasn't.

Maybe so. For that I apologize. I guess my comment is directed more at the simpering liberal panty-waists who think that criminals deserve consideration and safety while plying their trade.

As is the case with all your rants. You don't actually listen to what your fellow debater is saying.

Regarding this case, I haven't really followed it much. Is there a somewhat agreed upon set of facts about the event? From what I understand Zimmerman was doing neighbourhood watch, and confronted Martin and they got in a fight and Z shot M. Is that the gist of it? Any specifics that are more or less confirmed?

Much more is confirmed:

1. Zimmerman sits in truck on neighborhood watch.
2. Z sees M, and calls 911.
3. Z reports to 911 what he says M is doing.
4. Dispatcher dispatches an officer - on the stand at trial the dispatcher said that if M was doing what Z said he was doing, it was suspicious and warranted a call to 911.
5. Z reports M had noticed he was being watched by Z from Z's truck, and M started to run off.
6. Z exits truck and starts to run after M.
7. Dispatcher asks if Z is following M. Z answers yes. Dispatcher says "we do not need you to do that." Z says "o.k." and stops. Dispatcher testified at trial that he did not give any instructions or orders, and that they are not empowered to do that. He gave a suggestion.
8. about a minute and a half goes by with Z still talking to the dispatcher discussing locations and whereabouts and M is not in the vicinity. Z has lost sight of M.
9. Z hangs up with dispatcher and about 3 more minutes later the conflict ensues.
10. Part of an exchange of words is heard by M's girlfriend on the phone and she testifies to M calling Z a creepy ass cracker and to Z asking M "what are you doing around here?" or words to that effect.
11. Fight ensues. We do not know who started it.
12. Prosecution called a witness named Good who testified that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman raining blows on Z in mixed martial arts style, specifically something called "ground and pound." He was very clear that the dark sweatshirt was on top, and the red colored clothes were on the bottom and that it was the red colored clothing on bottom that was screaming for help.
13. Gunfire.
14. Martin dead.
15. Z hangs around waits for police and immediately seems to cooperate by telling what he says happened.
16. Evidence is collected and pictures taken of wounds to Z's back of head.

I think that roughly covers it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Serino was called to the stand by the prosecution and was expected to be a key witness against Zimmerman. In his “just-the-facts” style of answering questions, Serino was repeatedly questioned by the prosecution and defense about Zimmerman’s version of what happened that night. But in a surprise, the investigator was asked by Zimmerman’s lawyer whether he believed Zimmerman was telling the truth, and the cop answered, “Yes.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2 ... acquittal/

“The medical evidence is consistent with his [Zimmerman's] statement,” Di Maio told the Florida court.

The words of Trayvon Martin’s father were also used to undermine the prosecution’s case. A key battle in the trial was over who was heard screaming for help in the background of a 911 call before the fatal shot was fired. Martin’s family insisted the voice was their son’s voice, while Zimmerman’s parents told the court it was Zimmerman screaming.
Serino testified that when Martin’s father, Tracy Martin, first heard the tape he said it was not Trayvon. “He looked away and under his breath said, ‘No,’” Serino told the court.
A second police officer gave a similar description of Tracy Martin’s reaction to the tape.