Zimmerman TrialFollow

I think the problem we are having is that it seems like total ******** that it could be legal for a person who initiates a confrontation to kill somebody and claim self defense. If Zimmerman never left his car, I feel sure that nobody would be dead right now. It reminds me of the cases where somebody breaks into a house, trips down the stairs, and then successfully sues the homeowner. I'm not saying that following Martin was illegal, but the fact that he created the situation and now might be getting off.

Irrelevant. What someone would do has no bearing on what they're legally allowed to do.

I guess in the sense that it's a problem for Zimmerman if the jury is idiotic enough to believe "we don't need you to do that" and "do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?" to be lawful orders. If how often it's come up here is any indication, he's pretty fucked.

Yeah I'd shoot.

Of course, I'd also have not followed the guy initially, listened to the cops, tried to calm the situation down if confrontation was inevitable, and tried to get away if there was an altercation. If you ignore any of the common sense actions one would normally take in these situations then shooting someone seems really rational.

Of course that doesn't make him a criminal, only a dumbass.

Edit: More on point: now that manslaughter is on the table, I'm guessing he ends up guilty of that.

Now they might add 3rd degree murder?

Like you say, I don't know. I have a hard time seeing the 2nd degree murder charge sticking, but as someone who's not totally in the loop with stuff, I suppose my guess is as good as flipping a coin. I'll also be a bit shocked if he gets off scot-free.

Oh well, either way.



Edit:

Martin was 17 though, not 10 or something. It's not like he's going to mature with the flip of the switch on his 18th birthday. While there certainly is good reason we don't punish a 17 year old the same way we do a full fledged adult, he was plenty old enough to realize his actions weren't making the situation any better.

Edited, Jul 11th 2013 8:54am by someproteinguy

Too bad the dead guy can't talk.

Nevertheless. With ten years' difference between them, one might reasonably expect the older guy to make better decisions. One would be disappointed in this case.

You can do quite a bit of damage with a pistol without pulling the trigger.

Yes. Because I would have been the idiot to decided to escalate a conflict with a guy with a gun. Assuming you didn't start out shooting at me (didn't I already make this point?), it shows that you don't intend to just shoot me outright unless I give you cause to do so. Maybe you don't want to shoot me. Maybe you don't want to shoot me in a way that can't be justified as self defense. I don't know. But what I do know is that if after knocking you to the ground I then jump on top of you and continue punching you, I've taken any possibility that you might not shoot me off the table.

So yeah. If you are armed, and I know you are armed, and I do that and fail to disarm you in the process, then I'm the dumbass who just got himself killed. If you are armed, and I *don't* know you are armed, and I do that, then I'm the dumbass who just got himself killed. Either way, it's my damn fault for getting shot.


And let's not forget that this all assumes that Martin knew that Zimmerman was armed, which is incredibly unlikely. As I've stated before, the much more likely possibility is that Martin assumed Zimmerman wasn't armed, and assumed he could beat him up, so he chose to do that. If he'd known Zimmerman was armed, it's almost certain he would not have engaged in a fistfight with him.

Isn't that the point of this whole thing? To discuss whether it was justified? I mean, the jury's going to have to make that exact decision, right? Sidestepping the core issue is kinda pointless, isn't it?



Um... At the risk of bursting your bubble we know that Martin was committing a crime. Let me remind you: I'm talking about Zimmerman shooting Martin, not Zimmerman following Martin into the complex. Zimmerman isn't on trial for following someone. He's on trial for shooting someone.

At the time that Zimmerman fired his weapon, Martin was committing a crime. Anytime you are on top of someone, pinning them to the ground and punching them, you are committing a crime (ok, outside of a regulated fighting match of course). It's called assault. And as I have repeatedly stated, self defense laws do *not* allow you to do what Martin was doing. Ever.

You keep wanting to obsess over whether Martin's behavior prior to Zimmerman following him could be proven to be criminal, but that's utterly irrelevant to the question at hand. It does not matter. Zimmerman has every right to follow Martin through the complex whether Martin is committing a crime or not. He has every right to approach Martin. He has every right to talk to Martin and ask him what he's doing, if he's a resident, where he lives, etc. Martin is not required to answer, but he's *not* allowed to attack Zimmerman for doing that either.



So what? Zimmerman doesn't have to prove that Martin was going to commit a crime in order to decide that what he's doing is suspicious and to follow him and see what he does and where he goes. He's perfectly within his right to do that, and one can argue that this is precisely what he's supposed to do when he's on watch. You know: Watch. Watching doesn't stop at the edge of the street.



No argument I've made in this thread rests on the assumption that Martin was going to commit a crime while walking home that night. So you're proving something no one is arguing. Um... Congratulations!?

Noted

As opposed to the alternative: No one is allowed to carry a gun, so if you're bigger and stronger than them, you can beat them up, rob, them, rape them, or whatever with impunity.



No world is perfect. Pick your poison. What's the old saying: God created man. Sam Colt made them equal.

Point being that being armed with a gun equalizes the playing field. The guy who is bigger and stronger no longer automatically wins. Thus, the little old lady who would otherwise always be a victim may be able to defend herself. More importantly, as long as we allow folks with guns around, it acts as a deterrent, thus protecting tons of other people who are not armed. Unfortunately, Martin wasn't bright enough to realize that the person he decided to bully might be armed, and paid for that mistake with his life. What we can hope is that the next kid who thinks he can knock someone around because he's bigger and stronger will remember what happened to Martin and realize that it might cost him his life, and maybe *not* do what Martin did.

Sadly, there's always someone who'll serve as a cautionary tale to the rest of us. Harsh? Yes. True? Absolutely.