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?