In my foreign land, murder is OKFollow

except, AS FAR AS WE KNOW Martin wasnt attacked, he was followed.

also was nightime (dark out)----- seems to be some "entitlement rage" going on where people feel they have an inalienable RIGHT to walk around other peoples property without being questioned. There is at least a chance that Zim's suspisions could have been dispelled.

Running when observed is an element of "suspicious behavior" & if you do run, & get away, its smarter NOT to go back. (but then you pretty much hafta run every time you see that person again).

Eh, that was a combination of what was already destined to be a convoluted sentence, and trying to type out and post said sentence while at work.

I disagree. My brother is around Martin's measurements, same height but much more muscular. I'm closer to Zimmerman's. He has a very lean figure (like Martin, from what pics tell me), I have a stocky build like Zimmerman.

But despite the fact that he has a ton of muscle, depending on what we are wearing you could definitely interpret me as being the bigger threat. Not if you are close up and able to examine our body types, but through clothes? It's not like Martin could tell how jacked Zimmerman was through his jacket.

Maybe I'm being unfair, because I can only think about how I would react. But it's always seemed to me like the human mind is more likely to bias in favor of broadness, rather than height.

Having a right to do something can change according to whether or not a situation arises from it. When we say "Zimmerman had the right to follow Martin", we are assuming something is the case that a Jury should be deciding, as what the question is whether or not following Martin can be considered negligence. I linked the law in question earlier in the thread, but criminal negligence is dependent on harm or near-harm coming to someone as a result of your actions (which would not have been illegal otherwise).

So, yeah, in one sense Zimmerman definitely had the "right" to follow Martin. But in the real sense, when we mean to say that there was nothing wrong or criminal with following him, we don't know the answer.

[EDIT]

As for their sizes, that's probably fair. Zimmerman couldn't have known how tall Martin was just by looking at him from a distance. Height is definitely intimidating when you are next to someone, but it's far less of a factor at a distance (where you can only consider proportions). It's kinda like when my brother is watching basketball. None of the players look intimidating to me... until I see them standing next to a coach. But when he's watching football, they all look intimidating.

I don't really feel like going back to listen to the 911 tape--can someone confirm which came first: Martin runs and Zimmerman leaves the vehicle?

Edited, Apr 10th 2012 10:59am by idiggory

My point is that Florida's negligence law, which I linked earlier in the thread, can still make the act of following criminal. The law establishes negligence in the event of harm or near-harm, and it established based on the rationality of action--an action being legal does not mean it cannot be criminal in the wake of later events.

It's not illegal for me to toss something off a roof that I'm repaving (assuming zoning laws that don't prohibit it). It is criminally negligent (a felony in Florida) if it causes harm or near-harm to someone else though.

Now see, why is this so hard for gbaji?

Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but the phrasing here bothers me. We don't know what happened either way.

Really, all we know is:

Zimmerman followed Martin
Martin and Zimmerman fought
Zimmerman shot Martin

We have conflicting stories regarding how the fight began and how it proceeded. We don't know much about what made Martin seem suspicious to Zimmerman. We don't know how long Zimmerman was watching or following Martin before exiting his vehicle to chase after him. We don't know who initiated the fight. We don't know how the fight proceeded (important, because SYG no longer applies if your opponent surrenders).

We have conflicting witness testimonies and (seemingly fair, imo) allegations of seriously poor police work. It wouldn't surprise me if, even if Zimmerman was guilty of something criminal, he'd never be charged because of various problems with the case (witness leading being the most significant, compounded with delayed testimonies until after the media coverage).

There's very little we don't know about the case. I seriously doubt Zimmerman murdered Martin in cold blood, just like I can't believe that Martin was committing crimes when Zimmerman spotted him.

What we need to know is whether or not SYG applies. If Zimmerman was criminally negligent or the aggressor, it does not apply. If Martin surrendered (which you could seriously argue if the pleads for help are confirmed to be his), then SYG does not apply. If Zimmerman did not start the fight, is not found negligent, and was not committing some other felony at the time, then SYG applies.

That's pretty much the extent of what we know. I feel that Zimmerman's actions were sufficiently negligent, but that's for a jury (not me) to decide.

Which is why I want him charged. Bring it to trial and have it sorted out there. I'm not demanding his execution, I'm asking that the courts be allowed to do their job. Police are not judges. The DA is not the judge. It is not either of their job to decide if Zimmerman is guilty or not.

I'm only going to respond to these 2 parts because I agree with the rest of what you posted.

SYG can apply if Zimmerman is the aggressor if, at the point in the alercation when Martin was shot, he had lost the upper hand, Martin had not fled and instead pressed the fight, and Zimmerman felt in grave danger. I don't necessarily agree with that wording of the law either, but that's the way it's written. I mean, what red-blooded American, when phyysically assault and fights back, is going to be clear of head enough to realize they have the upper hand in the fight and should try to end the fight so the other party doesn't take out a gun and shoot them? I think SYG should be written in such a way that you have a right to protect yourself, your property, or another person who is having a forcable felony committed against them. But if you start the physical altercation should not apply.

The only reason I disagree with the second paragraph is because, unfortunately, that is not the way the SYG law is written. The law puts the burden of proof on the prosecution. Speedy trial laws also make it difficult to arrest someone before you have enough evidence to convict. I don't doubt that Zimmerman will eventually be arrested, and so far he hasn't gone anywhere so I think he will still be there when they come with the warrant.

I'm just afraid that the trial wil turn into an even bigger media ***** circus than the investigation so far has been.

You can get away with statutory rape if you can prove the underage individual not only made no attempt to prove their legal status, but went out of their way to hide it. There's no "If A happens, B is the consequence." You should see the UCMJ books we have. The first three pages are all of the UCMJ laws and charges, and the following thousand~ish pages are how and when they are and aren't applicable and in what situations.

1) Pick fight
2) Start losing and kill other guy
3) ???
4) Profit!

See, but there the burden of proof is on the defendent, which makes sense. The prosecution shouldn't have to prove that the kid didn't hide their age.

But if that's actually how SYG works, I could walk up to anyone in an isolated section of Florida, force a fight, then murder them and claim self defense. If the burden of proof is on the prosecution, they have very little hope unless I was stupid enough to commit the crime where there was AV recording being done, killed him stupidly (like I put the gun in his mouth or something), or failed to make the fight believable.

I really, really, really hope the lawmakers in Florida weren't this stupid. It's believable that they were, but I have to have SOME faith in humanity. Maybe.

Bullshit. If he'd have been found innocent he'd still be chastised as a racist and how he murdered a young innocent little boy and there would be equal, if not more, fervor over the justice system. If he'd have been found guilty there'd be fervor over the failures of the justice system when you're found guilty of just defending yourself against someone who was on the verge of killing you and how justice was subverted based purely on public opinion.

Either way, pure and utter bullshit if you think, for even a second, that a trial would have made it all better.

Edited, Apr 10th 2012 4:06pm by lolgaxe