Which is completely irrelevant. We're not talking about the broader issue of whether people should be able to tail other people. We're talking about the specific incident and whether Zimmerman was using justifiable self defense. That is the issue that the trial hinges on.
To me the issue has always been one of how far you are allowed to go in creating a potentially lethal situation.
From my point-of-view, if you follow someone who does not know you and then chase after them, the person being chased might have reasonable expectation that his/her life is in danger even though you might not have any intent to cause them direct harm. I believe Zimmerman created just such a situation through malice, negligence or ignorance.
Right now my interpretation of events is that Zimmerman created a situation where Martin was justified to act in self defense and the evidence presented so far has not convinced me that Martin did anything that would forfeit that status. As long as Martin's actions were justified self defense, Zimmerman cannot claim the same.
To me the issue has always been one of how far you are allowed to go in creating a potentially lethal situation.
From my point-of-view, if you follow someone who does not know you and then chase after them, the person being chased might have reasonable expectation that his/her life is in danger even though you might not have any intent to cause them direct harm. I believe Zimmerman created just such a situation through malice, negligence or ignorance.
Right now my interpretation of events is that Zimmerman created a situation where Martin was justified to act in self defense and the evidence presented so far has not convinced me that Martin did anything that would forfeit that status. As long as Martin's actions were justified self defense, Zimmerman cannot claim the same.
This is not true. What's more, you appear to be jumping back and for between "is allowed" and "should be allowed". We don't find people criminally liable for behavior that should be illegal. We find them criminally liable for behavior that is illegal.
From my point-of-view, if you follow someone who does not know you and then chase after them, the person being chased might have reasonable expectation that his/her life is in danger even though you might not have any intent to cause them direct harm. I believe Zimmerman created just such a situation through malice, negligence or ignorance.
You forget, he also stopped pursuit and was returning to his car when Martin doubled back and confronted him.
Right now my interpretation of events is that Zimmerman created a situation where Martin was justified to act in self defense and the evidence presented so far has not convinced me that Martin did anything that would forfeit that status. As long as Martin's actions were justified self defense, Zimmerman cannot claim the same.
Except Martin's actions weren't justified self defense. As soon as he turned around and confronted the retreating Zimmerman, he (and the prosecution) lost all ability to claim Martin was defending himself.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
This is not true. What's more, you appear to be jumping back and for between "is allowed" and "should be allowed". We don't find people criminally liable for behavior that should be illegal. We find them criminally liable for behavior that is illegal.
What is the legal principle then? If I shoot at someone and he shoots back in self defense and then I shoot again and kill him, I can't claim self defense even though my life was in danger at the point when I fired the lethal shot.
An otherwise legal action can be perceived as a threat and justify self defense eg. if you point a fake gun at me, I can use lethal force if I reasonably believe the gun to be real.
While Zimmerman's actions by themselves were not illegal, on that particular night they posed a valid threat to Martin.
You forget, he also stopped pursuit and was returning to his car when Martin doubled back and confronted him.
Except Martin's actions weren't justified self defense. As soon as he turned around and confronted the retreating Zimmerman, he (and the prosecution) lost all ability to claim Martin was defending himself.
Based on the geography of the location I do not believe this to be factually true. The more logical interpretation is that Zimmerman spotted Martin again and went after him. Martin turned around and confronted Zimmerman face-to-face at that point. Zimmerman was never retreating.
Every time anyone gets into a car, they are creating a potentially lethal situation.
Every time someone with a CCW loads their handgun and puts it in their holster, they are creating a potentially lethal situation.
Hell, every time someone steps out of their house, they are creating a potentially lethal situation.
Pretty much everyone in this world creates a potentially lethal situation every day, one way or another.
With this philosophy I can understand why you carry a fire arm as often as possible. These examples of potential lethal situations are unfair comparisons. The biggest difference is intent. Zimmerman intended to go out looking for trouble that night, Zimmerman intended to stalk Martin, Zimmerman intended to pull the trigger that fired the lethal shot into Martin.
Zimmerman claims he was acting in self-defence, and claims that he shot Martin when Martin was allegedly full mounted on Zimmerman.
The same autopsy that revealed traces of THC in Martin's system also found that Martin died of a lethal gun shot wound to the chest fired 36" inches away. If someone is on top of someone and that person on top gets shot, they are going to be a lot closer than 36" inches, as well when Zimmerman was in the police station footage there wasn't any blood on Zimmerman's clothes. If Zimmerman's claim was that he shot Martin when he was on top of him logic states that there should be some blood splatter from the entry wound.
Unfortunately for you, and the prosecution, that is the only available version of events. Call it a self-serving lie all you want, doesn't change the fact that it cannot be refuted. The only person who could refute that timeline of events is dead.
With this philosophy I can understand why you carry a fire arm as often as possible. These examples of potential lethal situations are unfair comparisons. The biggest difference is intent. Zimmerman intended to go out looking for trouble that night, Zimmerman intended to stalk Martin, Zimmerman intended to pull the trigger that fired the lethal shot into Martin.
Intent cannot be proven that Zimmerman intended to pull the trigger and kill Martin. If that intent could even remotely be proven, the prosecutor would've filed for first degree murder.
The same autopsy that revealed traces of THC in Martin's system also found that Martin died of a lethal gun shot wound to the chest fired 36" inches away. If someone is on top of someone and that person on top gets shot, they are going to be a lot closer than 36" inches, as well when Zimmerman was in the police station footage there wasn't any blood on Zimmerman's clothes. If Zimmerman's claim was that he shot Martin when he was on top of him logic states that there should be some blood splatter from the entry wound.
Actually, the autopsy report says 1" to 18" away. And most likely 2" to 4" because powder residue and a blast ring was found on Martin, and that residue dissipates very quickly and a blast ring means they were close enough for the momentary muzzle blast to singe Martin.
And as someone who has shot and killed someone before (admittedly, it was from a distance much greater than the 1" to 18" specified in the autopsy report), I can tell you that blood splatter from the entry point of a wound is minimal, sometimes non-existent. The blood splatter comes with the exit wound. Then blood typically leaks from the entrance wound once the body has settled.
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
Unfortunately for you, and the prosecution, that is the only available version of events.
you seem positively gleeful over the fact that the other witness is dead.
Call it a self-serving lie all you want, doesn't change the fact that it cannot be refuted. The only person who could refute that timeline of events is dead.
and yet, here he sits, on trial for second degree murder.
It doesn't have to be refuted to not be believed: I can say I invented the Internet in 1970 when I was kid, wrote it down on a piece of toilet paper, and wiped my ass with it. Nobody can refute it. Mine is the only version of those events.
you seem positively gleeful over the fact that the other witness is dead.and yet, here he sits, on trial for second degree murder.
That's not rude or anything. To say that Solaran is happy that Trayvon is dead is just an insult to the debate forums. Not once have I seen Solaran say anythign remotely close to, "I'm glad the ****** is dead."
(Using that phrasing to show how stupid your assumption there is.)
The special prosecutor had the ability to bring it to the grand jury. Many prosecutors, when they enter CYOA mode, do so because the burden of proof to get an indictment is laughably low. She decided not to, making herself to sole arbiter of what charges would be filed. This is a dog and pony show. It's all political. You know it is, because she didn't come out and say when she knew what she'd charge him with immediately. It was "In 72 hours I will announce the charges." And the press conference? An absolute laughingstock. I seriously expected her to thank Satan, since she thanked everyone else.
In short, this is all political. The evidence to support second-degree murder is, according to Alan Dershowitz, non-existent. In fact, he said that special prosecutor was "morally and ethically" irresponsible in the way she has continued to handle this case, and that the information she provided to support the charges was so thin as to be a joke. Alan Dershowitz is a lawyer, mind you, that I respect, and many in the profession do. If he says something, you tend to take that at face value.
And now the FBI - the federal government - is going to file hate crime charges. I will not be surprised to see them arrest and try him in federal courts when he is acquitted in Florida. This is a joke, plain and simple.
It doesn't have to be refuted to not be believed: I can say I invented the Internet in 1970 when I was kid, wrote it down on a piece of toilet paper, and wiped my ass with it. Nobody can refute it. Mine is the only version of those events.
Sure you could. And then we'll point to Al Gore saying he created the Internet and laugh at how silly you sound, just like he did. The facts do not support your claim.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The above post is the opinion of the poster and is not indicative of any stance taken by the President of the United States, Congress, the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the Department of the Navy, or the United States Marine Corps."
Which is completely irrelevant. We're not talking about the broader issue of whether people should be able to tail other people. We're talking about the specific incident and whether Zimmerman was using justifiable self defense. That is the issue that the trial hinges on.
Technically tailing and taking an aggressive posture with someone (latter is not known, but with Trayvon swinging at him, seems likely) is enough to void self-defense in many jurisdictions.
Even the author of the SYG law says it voids SYG.
And much like there being no evidence of his word being accurate for the "Hey, I invented the internet" hypothesis - there's similarly no appropriate evidence of Zimmerman being "jumped from behind".
If he truly was assaulted from behind, as he claims, why are all of his injuries consistent with being hit from the front exactly? Heck, if he was "heading back to his car" why was he a full 30+ feet away from it and not even on the CORRECT SIDE OF THE STREET compared to where he parked?
Both of course aren't slamdunks that his story couldn't have happened - but considering how likely they make the picture appear to be something else, he'd need more in any normal jurisdiction - SYG law will probably make it moot though. I have no doubt Alan Dershowitz is right, as he often is, but not if it was in a normal jurisdiction that didn't have SYG. SYG raises the threshold for evidence into the stratosphere for anything that could remotely be considered self-defense - it's a terrible law.
Technically tailing and taking an aggressive posture with someone (latter is not known, but with Trayvon swinging at him, seems likely) is enough to void self-defense in many jurisdictions.
Even the author of the SYG law says it voids SYG.
Not being protected on SYG doesn't mean you still can't claim self-defense.
If Zimmerman did indeed stop pursuit and was retreating to his SUV when he was confronted by Martin, Martin is now the aggressor and Zimmerman can (and is) claiming self-defense.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
To me the issue has always been one of how far you are allowed to go in creating a potentially lethal situation.
From my point-of-view, if you follow someone who does not know you and then chase after them, the person being chased might have reasonable expectation that his/her life is in danger even though you might not have any intent to cause them direct harm. I believe Zimmerman created just such a situation through malice, negligence or ignorance.
Right now my interpretation of events is that Zimmerman created a situation where Martin was justified to act in self defense and the evidence presented so far has not convinced me that Martin did anything that would forfeit that status. As long as Martin's actions were justified self defense, Zimmerman cannot claim the same.
Agreed in full. No matter how this situation is parsed it was a tragedy. And if Zimmerman decided to not act like billy bada$$ he would be alive and Zimmerman would not be on trial.
Not being protected on SYG doesn't mean you still can't claim self-defense.
If Zimmerman did indeed stop pursuit and was retreating to his SUV when he was confronted by Martin, Martin is now the aggressor and Zimmerman can (and is) claiming self-defense.
Depends entirely on the jurisdiction and what you were doing during that pursuit.
For example: If he was doing actions that fall under "menacing" for the jurisdiction, retaliation is allowed in many cases. [And stalking after a kid half your age and unarmed is enough to fall under many variants of menacing - and with his history and the jurisdictions I'm familiar with menacing law under (none are FL though FWIW though) assuming he was repeating past history it would've been VERY easy for him to end up falling under menacing law]
However, yes - in many cases, him turning around and walking away is generally enough to turn it to self-defense, but just because 90% of the cases are doesn't mean this couldn't be in the 10% (or whatever portion).
Even a hypothetical as simple as him turning around and slipping on some loose dirt and making a grabbing motion at Trayvon is enough to actually have Trayvon as the defending party in the case. [And yes, even something misunderstood like that would open the floodgates]
Heck, one of the worst things with the nebulous nature of this case is that it provides ammo for those nutjobs that would want Big Brother level of cameras watching everything on the street - since there's so much that's speculative.
Agreed in full. No matter how this situation is parsed it was a tragedy. And if Zimmerman decided to not act like billy bada$$ he would be alive and Zimmerman would not be on trial.
AHH, got to love how the guy who was beating up the guy is innocent. It takes 2. If Trayvon doesnt beat the crap out of Zimmerman, he probably would be alive today too.
AHH, got to love how the guy who was beating up the guy is innocent. It takes 2. If Trayvon doesnt beat the crap out of Zimmerman, he probably would be alive today too.
*looks for the word innocent in his quoted post*...strange. I don't see it. Also, sequence of events. Something precluded that. I can't imagine what it was though...
The irony, for all that some are leaping to Zimmerman and accusing others of diving into arguments of race, they are committing the same exclusion of the middle they accuse others of.
If that is the way it's going..such folks seem to want to present to others two ideas we have to decide between.
1. If you are violent against a stalker/stranger whose intentions you don't know(kidnapper? murderer? mugger?) expect to get shot and it's your fault.
2. Stalking people leads to tragic, violent conclusions.
I'm choosing the latter 100 times out of 100.
But I suppose it's easier to just say an unarmed kid deserved to be shot.
The special prosecutor had the ability to bring it to the grand jury. Many prosecutors, when they enter CYOA mode, do so because the burden of proof to get an indictment is laughably low. She decided not to, making herself to sole arbiter of what charges would be filed.
So what you're saying is she wasn't in CYOA mode (I think that's admirable).
If you're arguing that she didn't believe she'd be able to get a grand jury to say yes, then you're also implying that she doesnt believe she has a snowball's chance in hell of getting a trial jury to say yes.
Quote from FaheyUSMC »
Quote from dcartist »
doesn't have to be refuted to not be believed: I can say I invented the Internet in 1970 when I was kid, wrote it down on a piece of toilet paper, and wiped my ass with it. Nobody can refute it. Mine is the only version of those events.
Sure you could. And then we'll point to Al Gore saying he created the Internet and laugh at how silly you sound, just like he did. The facts do not support your claim.
That went totally over your head. I didn't argue that I created the Internet. Only pointed out that if I claim to have invented the idea and discarded it, you don't have to believe it, despite the inability to refute it.
Solaran_X is making the fallacious argument (again as others have done) that because Martin's version of events is the only one, that we have to take his word for it. That because it can't be "refuted" by another witness, we have to accept it.
Zimmerman chased Trayvon. Then they fought and He shot Trayvon.
(1) Zimmerman says that he gave up his chase before he shot Trayvon. It "can't be refuted" so we have to assume its true?
(2) Zimmerman says that Trayvon threw the first punch. It "can't be refuted" so we have to assume its true?
(3) If Zimmerman were to say that He had first meekly apologized to Trayvon for following him, and identified himself as a neighborhood watchman, and then Trayvon attacked him anyway like a crazed madman yelling "die motha****a die!" took 3 punches and a roundhouse kick at him which Zimmerman easily dodged, then finally managed to do a crane kick and get George down, grab his gun, pistol whip him 3 times and knock George unconscious breaking his nose, blackening one eye, then blackening the other, but George managed to wake up just in time, leap forward with catlike speed and grabbed the gun back, but then Trayvon grabbed it again and in the struggle the gun went off and Trayvon lay in the grass dead as Zimmerman wept over this senseless death... it can't be refuted" so we would have to assume its true?
Zimmerman's version of the unwitnessed portion of events is worth virtually nothing.
If man A and man B are witnessed fighting, and bad property damage is done. man A says "B started it". Man B says "A started it".
Who is more credible? A or B?
If man C and man D are witnessed fighting, and man D is killed. man C says "D started it".
Man D says nothing because he is dead.
Should we believe man C? Nobody can refute him.
Who is more credible, A or C? They are equally credible.
They are equally credible. Their claim that the other person started it has VIRTUALLY NO VALUE.
Yet Solaran_X and some of the pro Zimmerman guys want to treat it like "Well man C is the only witness so we have to take his word. Hell no."
*looks for the word innocent in his quoted post*...strange. I don't see it. Also, sequence of events. Something precluded that. I can't imagine what it was though...
The irony, for all that some are leaping to Zimmerman and accusing others of diving into arguments of race, they are committing the same exclusion of the middle they accuse others of.
If that is the way it's going..such folks seem to want to present to others two ideas we have to decide between.
1. If you are violent against a stalker/stranger whose intentions you don't know(kidnapper? murderer? mugger?) expect to get shot and it's your fault.
2. Stalking people leads to tragic, violent conclusions.
I'm choosing the latter 100 times out of 100.
But I suppose it's easier to just say an unarmed kid deserved to be shot.
Except you choose to forget that there had been a string of break ins in the area, Zimmerman was on the neighborhood watch. According to you, cops are stalkers too. Following and watching someones actions is not against the law. punching someone is. If the kid didnt lash out, he would be alive today.
Except you choose to forget that there had been a string of break ins in the area, Zimmerman was on the neighborhood watch. According to you, cops are stalkers too. Following and watching someones actions is not against the law. punching someone is. If the kid didnt lash out, he would be alive today.
Depends entirely what is done while the person is following.
Especially since some of Zimmerman's past actions have been treading close to that ground as well.
Even the first example in that article of menacing is something that HAPPENED ACCORDING TO ZIMMERMAN himself in that Trayvon supposedly saw that weapon - if true, that's potential menacing right there including the pursuit that he had put into it which would qualify for the second half of the definition of menacing.
And there's a reason why cops are much more restricted on what they're allowed to do outside of uniform - and why security staff for any place that act in a fully armed capacity are required to generally be uniformed as well. And why is that? Because the uniform covers the "Excuse me, I'm part of the neighborhood watch..." bit that Zimmerman should've led their encounter with in a nonverbal fashion.
Heck, if Zimmerman was really serious about the whole neighborhood watch thing, why didn't he do what all the watches I've seen and/or been a part of up here in the North-East do and print up shirts? Something as simple as having a Neighborhood Watch uniform would've probably kept Trayvon's reaction passive.
And considering an estimated less than 5% of punches to the face ever have assault charges pressed it's a pretty weak argument that "He was breaking the law". Even the slightest provocation can negate that charge if there's a reasonable expectation of "fight or flight" reflex - of which the other party following you, not announcing their affiliation or wearing a uniform, and carrying a gun that you see - add to a pretty likely "F or F" reflex.
Hmmm.. so because 'most' hits to the face dont end up in legal charges, its ok to go hit someone in the face?
Nope, still battery. And being on top of the guy beating on him WITH a witness seeing as such is grounds for possible jail time ( at least in my state, its called a cooling off period.)
Its not ours to interpret the law, just follow them.
There is no way Travyon knew Zimmermans past. Thats for the court room to bring into the case and show a past of doing something in a way it could be constituted as wrong according to the case.
I do agree about the shirts, but normally those on watch dont stop watching just because their shift/night is done. Its something you do continually. As it should be.
Just to be clear, both sides did not handle the whole situation in a proper manner. Sadly someone died because of his actions. But it takes 2. If Zimmerman didnt have a gun ( which was legal for him to have), If travyon didnt punch Zimmerman (which is sounding more like beat the crap out of).
My question is, was Zimmermans gun visible to Travyon? If so was the kid that dumb to start and altercation with an visibly armed man? I know I wouldnt want to escalate a confrontation with an armed person, just because of what MIGHT happen in that altercation.
AHH, got to love how the guy who was beating up the guy is innocent. It takes 2. If Trayvon doesnt beat the crap out of Zimmerman, he probably would be alive today too.
We KNOW that Zimmerman "billybadassed" and recklessly pursued Trayvon.
We DON'T KNOW that Trayvon "beat the crap out of Zimmerman".
We KNOW that Trayvon was in a fight with Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman suffered no injuries necessitating so much as a bandaid.
Just to be clear, both sides did not handle the whole situation in a proper manner. Sadly someone died because of his actions. But it takes 2. If Zimmerman didnt have a gun ( which was legal for him to have), If travyon didnt punch Zimmerman (which is sounding more like beat the crap out of).
So, you feel they're both at fault for this: Well Trayvon was executed for his part in it. What do you feel Zimmerman's punishment be for his part?
Which goes back to my very first comments the day this first hit the news: when two strangers get in a fight and one of them ends up dead, its homicide until you prove its not. That's your STARTING point.
My question is, was Zimmermans gun visible to Travyon? If so was the kid that dumb to start and altercation with an visibly armed man? I know I wouldnt want to escalate a confrontation with an armed person, just because of what MIGHT happen in that altercation.
It would be impossible to know if he saw it first.
Its very unlikely he did though, unless Zimmerman was pointing it and announcing it. Thats a tiny dark gun in a dark holster at night.
Thats not how the American court system works. Its up to the prosecution to PROVE GUILT, beyond a reasonable doubt. Not the defenses job to prove their client is innocent. Innocent until proven guilty.
As for one person in the altercation ending up dead, it happens every day in every large metropolis of the world. I dont think there is enough evidence to prove Zimmerman wasnt protecting his own life. Travyon came to a gun fight with his fists. There are very few that could come out the winner in that situation.
You are reading in WAY too much to what Zimmerman did, and playing it soft on what Travyon did. I feel Zimmerman was doing what he was suppose to do as a neighborhood watch person. He was protecting the property of his neighbors. Travyon flew off the handle and struck Zimmerman. And according to a WITNESS, Travyon was ON TOP OF ZIMMERMAN.
Zimmerman quoted Trayvon as "going for his gun" - so yea, it's pretty obvious that he had it in a visible position at some point - at the onset, unsure - but clearly not well obscured if a shift of clothing could make it visible. Likely since a shift of clothing made it visible to Trayvon according to Z, it's quite likely Trayvon could at least see the handle of something but couldn't identify what type of weapon at the onset.
And as for him hitting a man with a gun with his fist - it's called a "fight or flight" instinct for a reason. And it's not always one of the two only - sometimes your snap decision is to try to knock the person down (which Trayvon supposedly was doing, shockingly) to give yourself a good headstart to run away.
In fact its the way I've dealt with an armed assailant the one time I had to deal with one in my businesses parking lot back in the day - charged him with my shoulder - ran into the store and locked the doors while I called the police. (Well, the non-pharmacy ones - but that was a good 200 yds away - and pretty sure locked at that hour already - generally they were locked by dark and it was dark that night)
To me the issue has always been one of how far you are allowed to go in creating a potentially lethal situation.
From my point-of-view, if you follow someone who does not know you and then chase after them, the person being chased might have reasonable expectation that his/her life is in danger even though you might not have any intent to cause them direct harm. I believe Zimmerman created just such a situation through malice, negligence or ignorance.
Right now my interpretation of events is that Zimmerman created a situation where Martin was justified to act in self defense and the evidence presented so far has not convinced me that Martin did anything that would forfeit that status. As long as Martin's actions were justified self defense, Zimmerman cannot claim the same.
This is not true. What's more, you appear to be jumping back and for between "is allowed" and "should be allowed". We don't find people criminally liable for behavior that should be illegal. We find them criminally liable for behavior that is illegal.
Every time anyone gets into a car, they are creating a potentially lethal situation.
Every time someone with a CCW loads their handgun and puts it in their holster, they are creating a potentially lethal situation.
Hell, every time someone steps out of their house, they are creating a potentially lethal situation.
Pretty much everyone in this world creates a potentially lethal situation every day, one way or another.
You forget, he also stopped pursuit and was returning to his car when Martin doubled back and confronted him.
Except Martin's actions weren't justified self defense. As soon as he turned around and confronted the retreating Zimmerman, he (and the prosecution) lost all ability to claim Martin was defending himself.
What is the legal principle then? If I shoot at someone and he shoots back in self defense and then I shoot again and kill him, I can't claim self defense even though my life was in danger at the point when I fired the lethal shot.
An otherwise legal action can be perceived as a threat and justify self defense eg. if you point a fake gun at me, I can use lethal force if I reasonably believe the gun to be real.
While Zimmerman's actions by themselves were not illegal, on that particular night they posed a valid threat to Martin.
Based on the geography of the location I do not believe this to be factually true. The more logical interpretation is that Zimmerman spotted Martin again and went after him. Martin turned around and confronted Zimmerman face-to-face at that point. Zimmerman was never retreating.
Which I believe to be a self-serving lie.
With this philosophy I can understand why you carry a fire arm as often as possible. These examples of potential lethal situations are unfair comparisons. The biggest difference is intent. Zimmerman intended to go out looking for trouble that night, Zimmerman intended to stalk Martin, Zimmerman intended to pull the trigger that fired the lethal shot into Martin.
Zimmerman claims he was acting in self-defence, and claims that he shot Martin when Martin was allegedly full mounted on Zimmerman.
The same autopsy that revealed traces of THC in Martin's system also found that Martin died of a lethal gun shot wound to the chest fired 36" inches away. If someone is on top of someone and that person on top gets shot, they are going to be a lot closer than 36" inches, as well when Zimmerman was in the police station footage there wasn't any blood on Zimmerman's clothes. If Zimmerman's claim was that he shot Martin when he was on top of him logic states that there should be some blood splatter from the entry wound.
Unfortunately for you, and the prosecution, that is the only available version of events. Call it a self-serving lie all you want, doesn't change the fact that it cannot be refuted. The only person who could refute that timeline of events is dead.
Intent cannot be proven that Zimmerman intended to pull the trigger and kill Martin. If that intent could even remotely be proven, the prosecutor would've filed for first degree murder.
Actually, the autopsy report says 1" to 18" away. And most likely 2" to 4" because powder residue and a blast ring was found on Martin, and that residue dissipates very quickly and a blast ring means they were close enough for the momentary muzzle blast to singe Martin.
And as someone who has shot and killed someone before (admittedly, it was from a distance much greater than the 1" to 18" specified in the autopsy report), I can tell you that blood splatter from the entry point of a wound is minimal, sometimes non-existent. The blood splatter comes with the exit wound. Then blood typically leaks from the entrance wound once the body has settled.
It doesn't have to be refuted to not be believed: I can say I invented the Internet in 1970 when I was kid, wrote it down on a piece of toilet paper, and wiped my ass with it. Nobody can refute it. Mine is the only version of those events.
That's not rude or anything. To say that Solaran is happy that Trayvon is dead is just an insult to the debate forums. Not once have I seen Solaran say anythign remotely close to, "I'm glad the ****** is dead."
(Using that phrasing to show how stupid your assumption there is.)
The special prosecutor had the ability to bring it to the grand jury. Many prosecutors, when they enter CYOA mode, do so because the burden of proof to get an indictment is laughably low. She decided not to, making herself to sole arbiter of what charges would be filed. This is a dog and pony show. It's all political. You know it is, because she didn't come out and say when she knew what she'd charge him with immediately. It was "In 72 hours I will announce the charges." And the press conference? An absolute laughingstock. I seriously expected her to thank Satan, since she thanked everyone else.
In short, this is all political. The evidence to support second-degree murder is, according to Alan Dershowitz, non-existent. In fact, he said that special prosecutor was "morally and ethically" irresponsible in the way she has continued to handle this case, and that the information she provided to support the charges was so thin as to be a joke. Alan Dershowitz is a lawyer, mind you, that I respect, and many in the profession do. If he says something, you tend to take that at face value.
And now the FBI - the federal government - is going to file hate crime charges. I will not be surprised to see them arrest and try him in federal courts when he is acquitted in Florida. This is a joke, plain and simple.
Sure you could. And then we'll point to Al Gore saying he created the Internet and laugh at how silly you sound, just like he did. The facts do not support your claim.
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
Technically tailing and taking an aggressive posture with someone (latter is not known, but with Trayvon swinging at him, seems likely) is enough to void self-defense in many jurisdictions.
Even the author of the SYG law says it voids SYG.
And much like there being no evidence of his word being accurate for the "Hey, I invented the internet" hypothesis - there's similarly no appropriate evidence of Zimmerman being "jumped from behind".
If he truly was assaulted from behind, as he claims, why are all of his injuries consistent with being hit from the front exactly? Heck, if he was "heading back to his car" why was he a full 30+ feet away from it and not even on the CORRECT SIDE OF THE STREET compared to where he parked?
Both of course aren't slamdunks that his story couldn't have happened - but considering how likely they make the picture appear to be something else, he'd need more in any normal jurisdiction - SYG law will probably make it moot though. I have no doubt Alan Dershowitz is right, as he often is, but not if it was in a normal jurisdiction that didn't have SYG. SYG raises the threshold for evidence into the stratosphere for anything that could remotely be considered self-defense - it's a terrible law.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Not being protected on SYG doesn't mean you still can't claim self-defense.
If Zimmerman did indeed stop pursuit and was retreating to his SUV when he was confronted by Martin, Martin is now the aggressor and Zimmerman can (and is) claiming self-defense.
Agreed in full. No matter how this situation is parsed it was a tragedy. And if Zimmerman decided to not act like billy bada$$ he would be alive and Zimmerman would not be on trial.
Depends entirely on the jurisdiction and what you were doing during that pursuit.
For example: If he was doing actions that fall under "menacing" for the jurisdiction, retaliation is allowed in many cases. [And stalking after a kid half your age and unarmed is enough to fall under many variants of menacing - and with his history and the jurisdictions I'm familiar with menacing law under (none are FL though FWIW though) assuming he was repeating past history it would've been VERY easy for him to end up falling under menacing law]
However, yes - in many cases, him turning around and walking away is generally enough to turn it to self-defense, but just because 90% of the cases are doesn't mean this couldn't be in the 10% (or whatever portion).
Even a hypothetical as simple as him turning around and slipping on some loose dirt and making a grabbing motion at Trayvon is enough to actually have Trayvon as the defending party in the case. [And yes, even something misunderstood like that would open the floodgates]
Heck, one of the worst things with the nebulous nature of this case is that it provides ammo for those nutjobs that would want Big Brother level of cameras watching everything on the street - since there's so much that's speculative.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
AHH, got to love how the guy who was beating up the guy is innocent. It takes 2. If Trayvon doesnt beat the crap out of Zimmerman, he probably would be alive today too.
*looks for the word innocent in his quoted post*...strange. I don't see it. Also, sequence of events. Something precluded that. I can't imagine what it was though...
The irony, for all that some are leaping to Zimmerman and accusing others of diving into arguments of race, they are committing the same exclusion of the middle they accuse others of.
If that is the way it's going..such folks seem to want to present to others two ideas we have to decide between.
1. If you are violent against a stalker/stranger whose intentions you don't know(kidnapper? murderer? mugger?) expect to get shot and it's your fault.
2. Stalking people leads to tragic, violent conclusions.
I'm choosing the latter 100 times out of 100.
But I suppose it's easier to just say an unarmed kid deserved to be shot.
If you're arguing that she didn't believe she'd be able to get a grand jury to say yes, then you're also implying that she doesnt believe she has a snowball's chance in hell of getting a trial jury to say yes.
That went totally over your head. I didn't argue that I created the Internet. Only pointed out that if I claim to have invented the idea and discarded it, you don't have to believe it, despite the inability to refute it.
Solaran_X is making the fallacious argument (again as others have done) that because Martin's version of events is the only one, that we have to take his word for it. That because it can't be "refuted" by another witness, we have to accept it.
Zimmerman chased Trayvon. Then they fought and He shot Trayvon.
(1) Zimmerman says that he gave up his chase before he shot Trayvon. It "can't be refuted" so we have to assume its true?
(2) Zimmerman says that Trayvon threw the first punch. It "can't be refuted" so we have to assume its true?
(3) If Zimmerman were to say that He had first meekly apologized to Trayvon for following him, and identified himself as a neighborhood watchman, and then Trayvon attacked him anyway like a crazed madman yelling "die motha****a die!" took 3 punches and a roundhouse kick at him which Zimmerman easily dodged, then finally managed to do a crane kick and get George down, grab his gun, pistol whip him 3 times and knock George unconscious breaking his nose, blackening one eye, then blackening the other, but George managed to wake up just in time, leap forward with catlike speed and grabbed the gun back, but then Trayvon grabbed it again and in the struggle the gun went off and Trayvon lay in the grass dead as Zimmerman wept over this senseless death... it can't be refuted" so we would have to assume its true?
Zimmerman's version of the unwitnessed portion of events is worth virtually nothing.
If man A and man B are witnessed fighting, and bad property damage is done. man A says "B started it". Man B says "A started it".
Who is more credible? A or B?
If man C and man D are witnessed fighting, and man D is killed. man C says "D started it".
Man D says nothing because he is dead.
Should we believe man C? Nobody can refute him.
Who is more credible, A or C? They are equally credible.
They are equally credible. Their claim that the other person started it has VIRTUALLY NO VALUE.
Yet Solaran_X and some of the pro Zimmerman guys want to treat it like "Well man C is the only witness so we have to take his word. Hell no."
Except you choose to forget that there had been a string of break ins in the area, Zimmerman was on the neighborhood watch. According to you, cops are stalkers too. Following and watching someones actions is not against the law. punching someone is. If the kid didnt lash out, he would be alive today.
Depends entirely what is done while the person is following.
For example, as stated earlier many times - MENACING law:
http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/menacing/
Especially since some of Zimmerman's past actions have been treading close to that ground as well.
Even the first example in that article of menacing is something that HAPPENED ACCORDING TO ZIMMERMAN himself in that Trayvon supposedly saw that weapon - if true, that's potential menacing right there including the pursuit that he had put into it which would qualify for the second half of the definition of menacing.
And there's a reason why cops are much more restricted on what they're allowed to do outside of uniform - and why security staff for any place that act in a fully armed capacity are required to generally be uniformed as well. And why is that? Because the uniform covers the "Excuse me, I'm part of the neighborhood watch..." bit that Zimmerman should've led their encounter with in a nonverbal fashion.
Heck, if Zimmerman was really serious about the whole neighborhood watch thing, why didn't he do what all the watches I've seen and/or been a part of up here in the North-East do and print up shirts? Something as simple as having a Neighborhood Watch uniform would've probably kept Trayvon's reaction passive.
And considering an estimated less than 5% of punches to the face ever have assault charges pressed it's a pretty weak argument that "He was breaking the law". Even the slightest provocation can negate that charge if there's a reasonable expectation of "fight or flight" reflex - of which the other party following you, not announcing their affiliation or wearing a uniform, and carrying a gun that you see - add to a pretty likely "F or F" reflex.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Nope, still battery. And being on top of the guy beating on him WITH a witness seeing as such is grounds for possible jail time ( at least in my state, its called a cooling off period.)
Its not ours to interpret the law, just follow them.
There is no way Travyon knew Zimmermans past. Thats for the court room to bring into the case and show a past of doing something in a way it could be constituted as wrong according to the case.
I do agree about the shirts, but normally those on watch dont stop watching just because their shift/night is done. Its something you do continually. As it should be.
Just to be clear, both sides did not handle the whole situation in a proper manner. Sadly someone died because of his actions. But it takes 2. If Zimmerman didnt have a gun ( which was legal for him to have), If travyon didnt punch Zimmerman (which is sounding more like beat the crap out of).
My question is, was Zimmermans gun visible to Travyon? If so was the kid that dumb to start and altercation with an visibly armed man? I know I wouldnt want to escalate a confrontation with an armed person, just because of what MIGHT happen in that altercation.
We DON'T KNOW that Trayvon "beat the crap out of Zimmerman".
We KNOW that Trayvon was in a fight with Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman suffered no injuries necessitating so much as a bandaid.
So, you feel they're both at fault for this: Well Trayvon was executed for his part in it. What do you feel Zimmerman's punishment be for his part?
Which goes back to my very first comments the day this first hit the news: when two strangers get in a fight and one of them ends up dead, its homicide until you prove its not. That's your STARTING point.
It would be impossible to know if he saw it first.
Its very unlikely he did though, unless Zimmerman was pointing it and announcing it. Thats a tiny dark gun in a dark holster at night.
As for one person in the altercation ending up dead, it happens every day in every large metropolis of the world. I dont think there is enough evidence to prove Zimmerman wasnt protecting his own life. Travyon came to a gun fight with his fists. There are very few that could come out the winner in that situation.
You are reading in WAY too much to what Zimmerman did, and playing it soft on what Travyon did. I feel Zimmerman was doing what he was suppose to do as a neighborhood watch person. He was protecting the property of his neighbors. Travyon flew off the handle and struck Zimmerman. And according to a WITNESS, Travyon was ON TOP OF ZIMMERMAN.
And as for him hitting a man with a gun with his fist - it's called a "fight or flight" instinct for a reason. And it's not always one of the two only - sometimes your snap decision is to try to knock the person down (which Trayvon supposedly was doing, shockingly) to give yourself a good headstart to run away.
In fact its the way I've dealt with an armed assailant the one time I had to deal with one in my businesses parking lot back in the day - charged him with my shoulder - ran into the store and locked the doors while I called the police. (Well, the non-pharmacy ones - but that was a good 200 yds away - and pretty sure locked at that hour already - generally they were locked by dark and it was dark that night)
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.