In my foreign land, murder is OKFollow

That's what I think is the most interesting thing that this case brings up.

What rights does a person have when they're being chased by someone who has a gun? Take this case: what if Martin caught a glimpse of Zimmerman's gun/holster when he came after him? Or if Zimmerman was brandishing the weapon somehow? I could see something like that inciting panic...can we fault the person for having their fight/flight response triggered? Who takes the blame for what results?

If a guy who clearly wasn't an officer ran at me, and I could see that he was armed, I might run, too. Doubly so if I had been aware of him skulking around behind me for a while. And if I found myself cornered, I don't know that I wouldn't try to brain him or something.

Not that any of this is to suggest that this was the case w/ the Martin shooting, 'cause who the hell knows.

Edited, Apr 5th 2012 10:17am by Eske

Edited, Apr 5th 2012 10:19am by Eske

I imagine most manslaughter cases are just an escalation of stupidity. (source for next two quotes)





I'm still maintaining that any reasonable person would have expected that following someone you suspect to be in the process of a criminal act, carrying an unknown metal object, has pretty clearly left behind reasonable care.

You're right, he had the right to follow Martin. Doesn't mean he can't be culpable for doing so, in the event that an altercation occurs. The entire case is balanced on the whether or not following Martin was negligent (which, as I understand it, would invalidate Stand Your Ground. But that seems to me something that courts, not cops, should be deciding.

I'd want Zimmerman to have a fair trial. I'd be surprised if he wasn't convicted of manslaughter, and jailed for a few years, but still, a fair trial. Which means rounding up 12 people who don't own internet or a TV. Yech, hard job.

One thing I find interesting about this, is that if Martin had actually been dangerous I very much doubt it would have ended the way it did.

Obvious joke, but I said fair trial. Fair Trial.

How about a Circus Trial

Um... You can defend yourself if someone assaults you whether or not they were committing any crime prior to assaulting you. What Martin was actually doing in the complex at that time is also irrelevant with regard to determining if Zimmerman acted in self defense.



Correct. Now prove that Zimmerman was the one who attacked Martin. Not chased. But actually threw the first punch.

Can you do that? Do you have any evidence of this? Then you have no case.



If you walked down the stairs, saw someone robbing your home and just shot the guy right there. But there is no need for this to happen on your private property and for the other person to be committing a crime *if* the other person assaults you.


You are walking down the street. You have a concealed weapon. Out of the blue, someone walks up to you, punches you in the face, knocks you down, and starts beating you. Can you fire your weapon in self defense? Absolutely.


That is the scenario. It does not matter who chased whom. Chasing someone does not give that person the right to assault you. Legally, if Martin initiated the physical attack, then Zimmerman has every right to defend himself. It does not matter what happened prior to that point.



Only if I were arguing that Zimmerman could just walk up to Martin and shoot him. But I'm not arguing that (and neither is Zimmerman, and that's not what the witnesses saw either).



Quick clarification: It's wrong because we have overwhelming evidence supporting the claim of self defense at the time Zimmerman fired his weapon. Obviously, this is not true in all cases, but it is in this one.

Wrong. Burden of the law is the other way. Given the witness statements and forensic information at the scene, the point at which he fired was a pretty textbook case of self defense (flat on his back, attacker on top of him beating him). You have to prove that this wasn't self defense. To do that, you must prove that Zimmerman not only initiated the fight itself, but under stand your ground, you may also have to prove that Martin himself never had an opportunity or ability to escape (which appears to clearly be the case). Under stand your ground as it's commonly been implemented, if two people both choose to fight, then *both* can claim self defense and neither is criminally responsible for injury to the other.

Again though, that only matters *if* you can prove that Zimmerman started the physical fight. But you can't prove that. The burden is on the state to prove that Zimmerman committed a crime. The fact is that they don't have sufficient evidence to even bring charges.



Did you read the police report? Any of the witness statements? Zimmerman had a bloody nose, a bleeding wound in the back of his head, and grass stains on his back. Three different witnesses all reported seeing someone matching Martin's description on top of someone else beating that person. All three reported that the person on the ground was screaming for help. One of the three also provided a description of the person who was on the ground which matched Zimmerman. That witness also described the same person standing over the guy who had been on top after the shot was fired.


There is overwhelming evidence of a textbook self defense case. How the hell can you even ask the question? There's a mountain of evidence here and all of it supports Zimmerman's story.




Well good thing there's a lot more evidence than a bloody nose and one witness.




Huh? It was the prosecutor for the DA's office who made the decision not to arrest Zimmerman. Who the hell did you think I was talking about?

Edited, Apr 5th 2012 2:16pm by gbaji

Now prove that Martin was the one who attacked Zimmerman. Not just ran away from, but actually threw the first punch.

Can you do that? Do you have any evidence of this? Then you have no case as well.

There is no mountain of evidence for either case. There's barely pebbles. Since it's exactly what you're doing.

Edited, Apr 5th 2012 5:43pm by lolgaxe

I don't have to. The burden is on the state to prove that Martin's death was manslaughter and not self defense.



Except that in this case, the starting point is a clear cut case of self defense. In the absence of proof about how the fight started, we can only look at how it ended. And that is straight up self defense.



You're kidding, right? Three witnesses describe Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him shortly before the shot was fired. That right there is sufficient proof of self defense. Zimmerman has a bloody nose, a bleeding wound on the back of his head, and grass stains on his back which perfectly supports his claim of self defense. What more do you need?


Remember that this is just what is publicly available. The initial scene report from the police and some quotes from witnesses in the media. We have to assume that the police have a much more detailed forensics report from the scene (pictures of the body, positions of everything, examinations of the sidewalk, etc). They have a forensic report from the evidence (clothes, body, gun, etc). They have complete official statements from all the witnesses. And they have a complete official statement from Zimmerman.

There have now been three additional investigative organizations looking over all of this evidence for over a week now, with an absolute circus in the media fueling them. Don't you think that if there was anything in there which could sufficiently call Zimmerman's claim of self defense into question to justify any sort of charges that someone would have arrested him by now? It's not like there's new evidence to collect, right? All the stuff that keeps coming out in the media is stuff the police knew on day one. And they choose not to prosecute Zimmerman.


Ever consider that maybe they know more than we do and they made the correct choice?

And yet, a prosecutor for the DAs office looked at the evidence and decided that it was not sufficient to charge Zimmerman with anything. I'm not the one insisting that the police and the DA got it all wrong, when they have all the evidence, and I have wild rumors and speculation. I'm the one standing around laughing at all the people doing that.


So yeah. I don't have to prove anything. Deal with it.



You get how that supports my claim that I don't have to prove anything? You're not actually this stupid, are you?



I'm not insisting anything. I've admitted all along that I don't know all the facts of the case. My point from day one has been that in the absence of evidence that the cops and the DA got it wrong, perhaps we should not assume that they did (get it wrong). Along the way, I've picked up bits and pieces of information, which all seems to support Zimmerman's claim of self defense. That obviously doesn't mean that there isn't information I don't know which might call that claim into question, but so far none of the people calling for Zimmerman's arrest have produced any.

You get that I'm not calling for any legal action at all. So I don't have to prove anything. It's those who are insisting that Zimmerman should be arrested who need to provide some reason for that position. And "he shot Trayvon!" is not good enough. We know he did. That's not in question. You want him to be arrested, show me that there's evidence that he didn't shoot him in self defense. Because everything I've seen about the actual moments prior to the shot being fired says that this was self defense. The police clearly thought it was self defense. The DA clearly thought it was self defense.

If you want to disagree with all of those people, you kinda need to have more than strong feelings.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, Alma.

Sigh. I'm quite sure I've already listed off all of the factors beyond what Zimmerman said (several times), so why ignore that and pretend that I'm only basing this on what Zimmerman said?

The physical evidence shows that Zimmerman was in a physical fight. The police observed him having a bloody nose, a bleeding wound on the back of his head, and grass stains on his back. All consistent with him having been on his back with an assailant on top of him.

Three different eye witnesses all reported seeing someone matching Martin's description on top of someone else beating that person while on the ground. One of the three described someone matching Zimmerman's description as the person on the ground, and then as the same person standing after the shot. Again, this matches the claim that Zimmerman acted in self defense.

Martin's body was found in a position consistent with someone who was shot while on top of someone else. This doesn't prove anything by itself, but is also consistent with the claim that Zimmerman was acting in self defense when he shot Martin.

None of the witness accounts at the time in any way contradicted Zimmerman's claim of self defense.




No. But overwhelming evidence supporting a claim of self defense combined with an absence of evidence that it was anything else should lead us to believe it was self defense. What's so bizarre about some people's perception of this case is that if this case hadn't already happened and people already formed strong opinions about it, and we were instead having a hypothetical discussion about legitimate uses of firearms in self defense, I doubt anyone would argue that a situation identical to this one would qualify. It's only because people formed opinions about this prior to learning all the facts that some continue to stubbornly insist that it could not have been self defense.


Seriously. Step back from this case itself and look at the facts objectively. It's self defense. It's obviously self defense. As I keep saying, this is nearly a textbook case that might be taught in a training class as exactly the point at which you're allowed to use a firearm in self defense. On your back, with an assailant on top of you, with no ability to escape and a fear that you might be pummeled into unconsciousness? As I've asked many times, if that's not when you're allowed to use your gun, then when?

It's not the cops who made the call. The DA did. And let me quote the relevant portion of the law:



Bolded section clearly shows that the burden is on law enforcement to prove that the use of force was unlawful (assuming the use of force meets the requirements, which it absolutely does in this case.


And just in case some are still confused about whether Zimmerman following Martin matters, or even if Zimmerman initiated a physical confrontation (for which we still have no evidence):



The point being that if Martin started the fight as Zimmerman claims, then Zimmerman is absolutely covered and is immune to arrest, prosecution, or civil action *unless* the police can find sufficient evidence to prove that this conflict does not meet the requirements (which is pretty much impossible in this case btw). Here's the thing though: Even if Zimmerman started the fight, he's still covered by the law. Because the witness statements show that Martin was the aggressor at the end of the fight, Zimmerman was screaming and yelling for help and was clearly unable to escape the fight. What this means is what I've been saying all along. Under Florida law it simply does not matter what lead up to the conditions at the end of the fight. What matters is that as long as Martin is pursuing and continuing the fight (as was clearly the case when he's on top of him beating on him), Zimmerman has the right to use deadly force in self defense. Period. It doesn't matter how they got there. The moment Martin gets himself into a controlling position in the fight and does not let up, he gives Zimmerman the right to shoot him in self defense.


That's why the police did not arrest him. That's why the DA did not press charges. And right now, despite massive public outcry and pressure, there's probably like 100 people at various levels of law enforcement in Florida looking over the evidence, and the witness statements, and the law, and scratching their heads trying to figure out any way that they *could* justify arresting him. But the law is incredibly clear, and the evidence that this falls under the heading of self defense is incredibly clear. The only way they can arrest him is if they basically just ignore their own laws and make new ones up on the spot.


And as I've been saying all along, that would not be justice.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Selective reading, eh? Zimmerman being on the ground does not prove that he was acting in self defense. For all we know, he could have started the fight, and been winning the fight moments before. Then that self defense claim goes right out the window.

It's an entirely possible scenario. So much for knowing that it was self defense. That was easy.

It's amusing that you think that I believe that Zimmerman should be arrested. I've said nothing of the sort in this thread. Why don't you take a moment to think before you put another stupid thought into text form? You've got all the time in the world here, you ought to use some of it to make yourself look like less of a fucking idiot.

I'm saying that you're being a hypocrite for lambasting others for making claims about knowing exactly what happened that night. You should read that a couple of times to make sure that it sinks in.


You're a racist, classist dick who's wholly incapable of doing any real self-reflection. Go fuck yourself.

If Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he was shoot, wouldn't it be likely that Zimmerman's clothing be bloody in the video of him walking into the police station?

Then all I know about gun shot wounds I learn watching crimes shows and Myth Busters.

I don't know if whoever punched first even matters. I don't know how often gbaji has thought about the possibility of being followed by a hostile stranger. As a woman who occasionally has to walk in the city after dark, I've obviously spent some time thinking on the subject. If I were confronted by a hostile stranger that was following me, you'd better believe they'd get pepper sprayed before they laid a hand on me.

It strongly supports his claim that he was though. Sadly, we live in an imperfect world where we do not always know all the details of every second of any sequence of events. The absence of such perfect information requires that we go with the best information we have. And that is that just seconds before he fired his gun, Zimmerman was seen on his back with Martin on top of him punching him.



And for all we know, space aliens abducted them both, experimented on them, killed Martin and brainwashed Zimmerman into thinking he'd shot him, then beamed them back onto the lawn. We can speculate all sorts of things. But we can only act on what evidence we have. We have no evidence that Zimmerman started the fight. We only have evidence of what happened at the end of it.


And, as I stated in my earlier post, according to the law it doesn't matter if Zimmerman started the fight. The moment Martin chooses to be the aggressor (by pinning Zimmerman on the ground and punching him), Zimmerman regains any right to self defense he might have lost by starting a fight. At the time Zimmerman fired, he was on his back, pinned to the ground, with an assailant on top of him punching him in the face. According to the law, it does not matter how he came to be in that situation. At that moment he has the right to fire in self defense.

So even if your unproven and unsupported speculation is true, you're still wrong.



Assuming that the information we have about the relative positions of Zimmerman and Martin just prior to the shot being fired are correct, then we do know it was self defense. You keep bringing up things I've already proven are irrelevant in this case. And speculating as well.



Ok. Then what do you believe should happen? What are you arguing about?



I have never claimed I now exactly what happened that night. What I have said repeatedly is that we know enough about what happened to accept Zimmerman's claim of self defense, and that we don't know of anything that counters that legal claim. I think I've provided more than enough support for my position on this.


The law is incredibly clear. Did you read it?




Well, that was helpful.

Edited, Apr 6th 2012 5:53pm by gbaji

Assuming we do know that Zimmerman was beneath Martin, which we don't, it does NOT logically follow that it was self defense. Who the aggressor or defender in a confrontation does not change with who has the upper hand in the actual engagement, unless it is accompanied with a significant amount of escalation.

That is the question here. Who is directly responsible for the fight that led to Martin's death? If Martin jumped Zimmerman, does that mean he has sufficient responsibility? Does following Martin place sufficient negligence on him to void his ability to claim self defense?

Who was winning once the fight began literally only matters if Martin was losing, as the claim demands Zimmerman have reason to believe his life was in danger. But we aren't likely to have anything but hear-say on that front.

Self defense requires that you can either prove you were the defender from the start, or that the encounter escalated to life-threatening levels for reasons that were not your fault. (Fisticuffs vs. pistols at dawn).

We don't? I provided quotes from witnesses (and a link to an audio interview on TV from one), which clearly established this way back on like page 2 or 3 of this thread. Did you forget this?

I originally linked to a site that had the video of the actual interview (though the guy's front door), but here's an article written about it more recently:




What part of a witness saying that "the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point" confuses you? This witness clearly places Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him, while Zimmerman yelled for help.



Holy hell. Yes it does. Zimmerman shot someone who was according to the eyewitness I just quoted on top beating Zimmerman up. What about that makes you conclude that he didn't shoot in self defense. What's not logical is anyone insisting that it wasn't self defense. It very clearly was.



So what? The criterion for self defense is met when you are on your back with someone on top of you beating you. Always.



None of this matters. You may think it does. You may want it to. But it doesn't. Not with regards to criminal charges against Zimmerman. And I'll point out that the same law in this situation makes Zimmerman immune to arrest, to charges filed against him *and* to civil litigation. That's the price you pay when you choose to jump on top of someone, pin them to the ground and beat them. And that's exactly why that portion of the law was written.



Huh? You have it completely backwards. All that matters is the state of the fight immediately before Zimmerman fired his gun. Period. And all of the evidence we have supports Zimmerman's claim that he was on his back, with Martin on top of him, beating him. That is all we need to know to establish clear self defense for Zimmerman.

And no. He does not need to believe his life was in danger. The statute says:



Section 777.013 refers to home protection BTW, so it doesn't technically apply here (except for one section, but that only applies if we assume Zimmerman was acting under stand your ground rules, which we don't know for sure).

I think at the point where you're on the ground being beaten in the face, you have a reasonable belief that you may be in risk of imminent great bodily harm. He does not have to wait until he's been beaten into a coma to act. The mere fact that Martin was hitting him, while he was in a position unable to escape automatically gives him the right to self defense no matter what happened prior to that point.

I just don't know how much more clearly I can show this to you. The law is absolutely clear about this. Try reading it.



Not completely true. Obviously, if you were the defender from the start, it's self defense. But even if you were not, the requirement is not that stiff. I already quoted this, but you're slow, so I'll do it again:



So if Zimmerman did initiate the fight (or somehow provoked it on himself), he does not have a right to self defense unless, he believes the same risks as is normally required for self defense (note the language is identical) *and* he has exhausted every means to escape other than the use of lethal force.

He's on his back. He's being pummeled by Martin. He yells for help. Someone opens a door nearby, but instead of helping, just tells Martin to stop, and closes his door (and calls the police). It is only after this point that Zimmerman shoots Martin. Assuming he could not extricate himself (and if he could, why's he still laying on the ground getting beat?), he's clearly exhausted every method to escape, including yelling for help and watching someone just slam his door on him.


Let's we forget, words Zimmerman told police when they first showed up was "I was yelling for help, but no one would help me". Does this paint a clear enough picture for you? Every single piece of information we have overwhelmingly shows that this was a case of self defense. I'm really honestly unsure why anyone keep thinking it wasn't.


Can you actually address any of those points? You're acting on what you think the law might be, or maybe should be, but I'm actually reading the applicable legal code and basing my position on that. And you're acting on speculation, but I'm acting on the police report from the scene and the witness accounts. When you put all of that together, it's a clear cut case of self defense. Why do you suppose Zimmerman still hasn't been charged even with all the outrage going on? If it were even remotely questionable, they'd have arrested him just to shut up the angry mob and then worked out the details later.

The problem is that the law is absolutely clear on this:



He's immune from criminal prosecution and civil action. Period. And section 2 clearly states that the burden is on police to show that the force was unlawful just to arrest him. Exactly as I've been saying all along.


You need much much more than just speculation that maybe under some contrived circumstances for which we have no evidence, Zimmerman's actions might not have been self defense. The starting condition given the physical evidence and the witness statements, is that this was self defense. From that starting condition, you need to come up with some evidence that it wasn't. Can you? Do you honestly have anything other than speculation to argue it wasn't self defense?


Because so far, I've heard nothing but speculation. You're free to try to do better, but I've been asking people for actual evidence for much of this thread, and have received nothing but more speculation and what-if's and maybes. You can't charge someone with a crime based on speculation. You need facts. You need evidence. Where is it?

Use of force and use of deadly force are legally distinct.

[EDIT]

And no, we don't KNOW anything, despite your witness testimony. You can suspect, you can speculate, but you don't know. Not by a really, really, really long shot.

[EDIT]



I actually bothered to read some of what you posted. Which made me notice this hilarious little gem in one of your legal cites:



I love when, on the rare occasion you actually look something up from a credible source, it works against you. Maybe next time you link something relevant.

Edited, Apr 6th 2012 11:01pm by idiggory

That's what I get for alt-tabbing while playing a game.

[EDIT]


Uh-huh, and where does "Holy sh*t this guy has a gun wtf do I do? He's been following me this whole time, he chased me? Do I have any reason to believe he's just going to let me leave?" fall on your list?

Edited, Apr 6th 2012 11:32pm by idiggory

Hmm, let's see...













Well shit, that was easy. And heck, It's not just all that. You've made plenty of assumptions in making your arguments, something which you're more than happy to chide others for here. Don't bother to deny it; I'm not in the mood to copy/paste another 8 million examples.

See, here's the thing: you've already lost. You just don't realize it yet. I'm sitting on a royal flush of bullsh*t that you already spouted, and you're trying to sell me on your 2-7 off suit. Ain't gonna happen, buddy.



It would be, were you capable of self-reflection.

Edited, Apr 6th 2012 11:50pm by Eske

Well, I think his point is that it's entirely possible to have a concussion without visible external injuries.

Not likely to happen from an adolescent boy shaking a grown man, though, you're right about that.

"Adolescent boy" refers to the fact that he is an adolescent. There's nothing in that phrase that says "twiggy little panty waist".