Straight Dope Message Board

[Chisquirrel]

Originally Posted by Helmut Doork

To not meet the definition of aggression, you would have to believe Zimmerman instigated the physical confrontation, yet got no punches in- possible, yes, probable no.

Ah, so only Zimmerman gets to stand his ground. Not the kid being followed by a dude with a gun. 151

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Helmut Doork

My understanding from the reading the court transcript, years ago so I could be wrong, is that Zimmerman denied doing this and claimed he was attacked by Martin from behind. No witnesses to the attack to confirm or deny.

Oh, well if the only survivor of the confrontation said so, that's gotta be hammered into lead as the fifth Gospel. 152

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

So pointing a gun at someone doesn't qualify as instigation?

It would, so we would need to examine the evidence to see if Zimmerman instigated the incident by pointing a gun at Martin. There is no evidence that he did, and circumstantial evidence that he did not. Namely, that if Zimmerman had been pointing a gun at Martin, it is unlikely that Zimmerman would wait until Martin knocked him down, broke his nose, blackened his eyes, and sat on his chest pounding his head into the ground, to fire.

Originally Posted by Kobal2

Oh, well if the only survivor of the confrontation said so, that's gotta be hammered into lead as the fifth Gospel.

Only if it's backed up by evidence (see above), even apart from the presumption of innocence.

Regards,
Shodan 153

[Helmut Doork]

Originally Posted by Chisquirrel

Ah, so only Zimmerman gets to stand his ground. Not the kid being followed by a dude with a gun.

Stand your ground is invoked where a physical confrontation takes place. Zimmerman roaming the neighborhood looking for crime was stupid, racist, all that, but has zero to do with stand your ground laws. 154

[Shodan]

Plus, it is difficult to stand your ground when someone is sitting on your chest.

Regards,
Shodan 155

[Helmut Doork]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

Oh, well if the only survivor of the confrontation said so, that's gotta be hammered into lead as the fifth Gospel.

How on Earth can you say Zimmerman for certain instigated the physical confrontation when there is zero physical evidence to back it up, and there are no witnesses? Just because he is a horrible human being does not mean he instigated the physical confrontation. Bad people can be the victims of crimes as well as good ones. 156

[sps49sd]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

So pointing a gun at someone doesn't qualify as instigation?

From where do you even get the notion that this happened? 157

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by Shodan

- I must be a racist racist who is racist too.

I've been posting on this board since 2001, and this the first thing you've ever said that was actually correct.

I get that.

Kudos, sir! Admitting there's a problem is the first step. 158

[Shodan]

When I click on the View Post link in your quote of me, I go to some thread about flea control. I assume this is not meant to be ironic.

Regards,
Shodan 159

[Superdude]

My apologies. I was posting from my phone, and must have transposed a number or two in the link. It was supposed to show your first post in this thread.

Try here. 160

[asahi]

George Zimmerman posts here? I didn't know the fucker could even read, but good to know. What's his user handle? 161

[Superdude]

Shodan 162

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Helmut Doork

How on Earth can you say Zimmerman for certain instigated the physical confrontation when there is zero physical evidence to back it up, and there are no witnesses?

Have I said that ? 163

[septimus]

Originally Posted by Helmut Doork

Stand your ground is invoked where a physical confrontation takes place. Zimmerman roaming the neighborhood looking for crime was stupid, racist, all that, but has zero to do with stand your ground laws.

By the time Zimmerman drew his gun and murdered Martin, he was probably acting within his legal rights.

He should have been charged with "depraved heart homicide" (or whatever the legal rendition of this charge is in Florida). Carrying a gun and stalking, with evil intention, an innocent man is ... inappropriate, whatever the lawyers may say. 164

[WillFarnaby]

Originally Posted by Shodan

No, Martin wasn't committing any crimes while Zimmerman was pursuing him. That came later.
OK.
A summary of the evidence that Martin was committing aggression against Zimmerman would include that Martin punched Zimmerman in the face (evidence: marks on Martin's knuckles consistent with having punched someone, Zimmerman's facial injuries, lack of any damage to Martin apart from the single gunshot wound), Martin knocked Zimmerman down and sat on his chest bashing his head on the ground (evidence: lacerations to Zimmerman's head, grass stains and moisture on Zimmerman's back and Martin's knees, witness testimony stating that Martin was on top of Zimmerman),

That’s fine.

and that Martin did so because Zimmerman asked him "what are you doing around here" (evidence: Dee Dee's testimony on what she heard Martin and Zimmerman say to each other).

You are assuming Martin attacked Zimmerman because of a question?

Isn’t in more likely Martin attacked him because Zimmerman had been stalking Martin for some time before the encounter? Why was Zimmerman pursuing him? To arrest him? At least it was to harm him in some way. Zimmerman could have asked the question from many yards away when he first saw him from his vehicle.

Compare what the two were doing before Martin beat him up. Martin was being pursued by someone with intent to harm him. Zimmerman was pursuing Martin with intent to harm him in some way.

From Zimmerman's perspective, his reason to follow Martin was that there had been multiple break-ins in the neighborhood and at least one shooting, and Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch.

Unfortunately Zimmerman was wrong. He erred in his judgement of Martin. If Zimmerman has been pursuing someone who was committing break-ins, he would have been stalking him legitimately. He wasn’t stalking Martin legitimately.

The fact that humans can be wrong is why police are trained to not approach the situation the way Zimmerman did. Zimmerman must be held accountable for his error that resulted in Martin’s death.

If by "legitimate" you mean "legal", it is legal to follow someone and to ask what they are doing.

It is both legal and legitimate to defend yourself from someone wishing to do you harm. This we can agree with. Zimmerman meant to either arrest or kill Martin when he pursued him. Therefore he had intent to harm Martin. Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman. If someone is stalking you with intent to harm you, when do you believe it is justified to defend yourself? When they pull out the gun?

Trials are about what's legal. Thus following somebody is legal, attacking them and smashing their head into the ground is not.

Regards,
Shodan

Arresting someone is not legal. Zimmerman was intending to arrest Martin. Martin defended himself from unlawful arrest. A killing that occurs during the commission of a felony (unlawful arrest here) is a felony murder. 165

[asahi]

Who are you, and what you have you done to WillFarnaby? 166

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

You are assuming Martin attacked Zimmerman because of a question?

Isn’t in more likely Martin attacked him because Zimmerman had been stalking Martin for some time before the encounter?

I don't see what difference that makes. Zimmerman was following Martin, lost sight of him, Martin was right by his father's house, then Martin doubled back and confronted Zimmerman and attacked him when Zimmerman asked Martin what he was doing. (According to the evidence of where the fight took place, where Martin's father's house was, and Dee Dee's testimony of what Martin said.) The question was the triggering event, but it's really beside the point - it is illegal to attack someone on the street even if they were following you.

Why was Zimmerman pursuing him? To arrest him? At least it was to harm him in some way.

There's no evidence of this, and some evidence that it is not the case. If Zimmerman wanted to harm Martin, why did Zimmerman not have his gun in his hand when he confronted Martin? If Zimmerman wanted to arrest Martin, why did he call the cops and arrange to meet with him? That's what was happening when Martin confronted and attacked Zimmerman - Zimmerman was looking for a house number or street sign to give his exact location to the police so they could meet up.

Compare what the two were doing before Martin beat him up. Martin was being pursued by someone with intent to harm him. Zimmerman was pursuing Martin with intent to harm him in some way.

Again, there is no evidence of this. If Zimmerman wanted to harm Martin, why did Zimmerman immediately call the police?

If Zimmerman has been pursuing someone who was committing break-ins, he would have been stalking him legitimately. He wasn’t stalking Martin legitimately.

If by "stalking illegitimately" you mean that Zimmerman was doing something illegal, that is not correct.

The fact that humans can be wrong is why police are trained to not approach the situation the way Zimmerman did.

Zimmerman isn't a police officer.

Zimmerman spotted what he thought was someone acting suspiciously. He then called the police, or more accurately, the police non-emergency number, and gave a description. The police NEN operator tells Zimmerman not to follow Martin. Zimmerman loses sight of Martin, then eventually gets out of his truck to look for a street name or house number, and then Martin confronts and attacks him on his way back to his truck.

It is both legal and legitimate to defend yourself from someone wishing to do you harm. This we can agree with. Zimmerman meant to either arrest or kill Martin when he pursued him. Therefore he had intent to harm Martin.

Again, there is no evidence that this is so, and some evidence that it is not.

Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman. If someone is stalking you with intent to harm you, when do you believe it is justified to defend yourself? When they pull out the gun?

You are justified in defending yourself when you are attacked. Zimmerman did not attack Martin, and there is no evidence that Zimmerman intended to attack Martin.

You are assuming facts not in evidence.

Regards,
Shodan 167

[WillFarnaby]

Originally Posted by Shodan

I don't see what difference that makes. Zimmerman was following Martin, lost sight of him, Martin was right by his father's house, then Martin doubled back and confronted Zimmerman and attacked him when Zimmerman asked Martin what he was doing. (According to the evidence of where the fight took place, where Martin's father's house was, and Dee Dee's testimony of what Martin said.) The question was the triggering event, but it's really beside the point - it is illegal to attack someone on the street even if they were following you.

I agree it is illegal to attack someone for following you. It is not illegal to defend yourself from unlawful arrest. We agree it is illegal to protect yourself. It is relevant because you said Martin attacked Zimmerman because he was being questioned. If Martin attacked Zimmerman because he believed himself to be in danger (which he was because Zimmerman had the intent to unlawfully arrest him), his attack is justified. We know from Martin’s phone call that he believed/knew Zimmerman was intending to harm him in some way.

If Martin did not believe Zimmerman was going to harm him and he attacked him for asking a question, that would be an assault by Martin. This is why I believe Martin’s reason for attacking Zimmerman is relevant.

There's no evidence of this, and some evidence that it is not the case. If Zimmerman wanted to harm Martin, why did Zimmerman not have his gun in his hand when he confronted Martin? If Zimmerman wanted to arrest Martin, why did he call the cops and arrange to meet with him?

Zimmerman had his gun and was pursuing who he thought was a burglar. He doesn’t need to have it out to intend to harm Martin. If Zimmerman had his gun out, would you believe Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman?

In any case the harm we know Zimmerman intended was the arrest of Martin. We know this because if he simply was looking for an address to meet with police, he could have stayed at the mailboxes. His intent was not to meet with police, it was to apprehend Martin himself.

That's what was happening when Martin confronted and attacked Zimmerman - Zimmerman was looking for a house number or street sign to give his exact location to the police so they could meet up.
Again, there is no evidence of this. If Zimmerman wanted to harm Martin, why did Zimmerman immediately call the police?

Zimmerman called the police so that they could arrest Martin. Once he had lost sight of Martin, he didn’t think the police would be able to find him, so he set out to get Martin himself.

If by "stalking illegitimately" you mean that Zimmerman was doing something illegal, that is not correct.

Is it illegal to unlawfully arrest someone? If it is, it is also illegal to stalk them with intent to arrest them. It’s illegal to shoot someone. It is also illegal to raise a loaded gun and aim it at someone. The illegal act doesn’t begin with the pull of the trigger and anyone would be a fool to allow someone to get that far in the act before defending himself.

Zimmerman isn't a police officer.

He isn’t but he should be held to the same standard. We can’t have vigilantes running around without consequences. We can have vigilantes running around with consequences.

[QUOTE¥]Zimmerman spotted what he thought was someone acting suspiciously. He then called the police, or more accurately, the police non-emergency number, and gave a description. The police NEN operator tells Zimmerman not to follow Martin. Zimmerman loses sight of Martin, then eventually gets out of his truck to look for a street name or house number, and then Martin confronts and attacks him on his way back to his truck.[/QUOTE]

You don’t get out of a truck to look for an address. You can see street names and numbers from a vehicle, they are designed for that purpose. He got out of the truck for another reason. If it wasn’t to get an address and it wasn’t to apprehend Martin, what was it?

Again, there is no evidence that this is so, and some evidence that it is not.
You are justified in defending yourself when you are attacked. Zimmerman did not attack Martin, and there is no evidence that Zimmerman intended to attack Martin.

Are you justified in defending yourself from unlawful arrest? If so at what point in the following scenario are you justified in doing so?

1)A man gets out of his car.

2)He pursues you for 15 minutes straight.

3)He confronts you with a holstered weapon and questions you.

4)He unholsters the weapon.

5)He aims it at you and tells you to lie on the ground.



Please keep in mind that if you wait for number 4 to occur, there’s a good chance you die. 168

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

I agree it is illegal to attack someone for following you.

I agree.

It is not illegal to defend yourself from unlawful arrest.

I agree.

We agree it is illegal to protect yourself.

I assume you meant "legal" rather than "illegal". If so, I agree.

It is relevant because you said Martin attacked Zimmerman because he was being questioned.

That was the last thing that happened before Zimmerman attacked, if that is what you mean.

If Martin attacked Zimmerman because he believed himself to be in danger (which he was because Zimmerman had the intent to unlawfully arrest him), his attack is justified.

We don't know that Zimmerman had that intent. And again, if Zimmerman's intention was to arrest, why did he call the police? Wouldn't that mean Zimmerman was taking the rather large risk that the police would show up and see him illegally arresting Martin?

We know from Martin’s phone call that he believed/knew Zimmerman was intending to harm him in some way.

No, we don't know that. There is nothing in Dee Dee's testimony that establishes this.

And, if Martin was afraid of Zimmerman, why would he double back, after he and Zimmerman lost sight of each other, and seek Zimmerman out to confront him?

If Martin did not believe Zimmerman was going to harm him and he attacked him for asking a question, that would be an assault by Martin. This is why I believe Martin’s reason for attacking Zimmerman is relevant.

I also agree with this.

Martin attacked Zimmerman - that is, he initiated violence - because Zimmerman had been following him, and also because Zimmerman asked him (according to Dee Dee) what he was doing. Following someone, and asking what they are doing, is neither harm nor the threat of harm. And to repeat, if Martin was afraid of Zimmerman harming him, why did he double back from his father's house and confront Zimmerman?

If Zimmerman had his gun out, would you believe Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman?

Yes, it would be justified. It would be stupid, because punching people with guns in their hand is a bad idea, but legally it would be justified.

But the evidence indicates that Martin did not know that Zimmerman had a gun, because he doubled back and confronted and attacked him. Therefore, it is unlikely that Martin feared harm from Zimmerman, since he could have walked into his own living room. He didn't - he went back and sought Zimmerman out.

In any case the harm we know Zimmerman intended was the arrest of Martin. We know this because if he simply was looking for an address to meet with police, he could have stayed at the mailboxes.

No, we don't know that, because there is no evidence that it is so, and some evidence that it isn't so.

Zimmerman called the police so that they could arrest Martin. Once he had lost sight of Martin, he didn’t think the police would be able to find him, so he set out to get Martin himself.

Again, there is no evidence that this is so.

Zimmerman spotted Martin acting (in his opinion) suspiciously. Zimmerman then calls the NEN operator and follows Martin. The NEN operator advises Zimmerman that they don't need him to follow Martin. Zimmerman and Martin lose sight of each other, Martin makes it back to his father's house, Zimmerman then tries to find a house number or street name to arrange an exact location to meet up with the police. (You can't see house numbers from the back, which is why Zimmerman went between the houses to look for them), and then was confronted and attacked by Martin when Zimmerman was coming back to where he arranged to meet the police. Martin comes back from his father's house, finds Zimmerman, they exchange words, and Martin attacks.

Is it illegal to unlawfully arrest someone?

Yes, by definition whatever is unlawful is illegal.

If it is, it is also illegal to stalk them with intent to arrest them.

As mentioned, there is no evidence of Zimmerman's intent to arrest Martin. That's something you are assuming, and there is evidence to suggest that the assumption is incorrect.

You don’t get out of a truck to look for an address. You can see street names and numbers from a vehicle, they are designed for that purpose. He got out of the truck for another reason. If it wasn’t to get an address and it wasn’t to apprehend Martin, what was it?

It was to get an address. You can't see the street names from the back. The back is where Martin confronted Zimmerman and attacked him.

Are you justified in defending yourself from unlawful arrest? If so at what point in the following scenario are you justified in doing so?

1)A man gets out of his car.

2)He pursues you for 15 minutes straight.

3)He confronts you with a holstered weapon and questions you.

4)He unholsters the weapon.

5)He aims it at you and tells you to lie on the ground.

Please keep in mind that if you wait for number 4 to occur, there’s a good chance you die.

Somewhere between 3 and 4. But you have left out a couple of intervening steps, which are

2a) You are a few steps from a place of perfect safety

2b) You do not have any reason to believe he has a gun

And

3a) It is illegal to attack people for asking you questions whether you know they have a gun or not

3b) If, because he followed you and then asked you what you were doing, you knock him down, break his nose, blacken his eyes, and sit on his chest smashing his head against the ground, it is likely to lead eventually to step 4, and he is legally justified (all other things being equal) in doing so.

Regards,
Shodan 169

[WillFarnaby]

Originally Posted by Shodan

And again, if Zimmerman's intention was to arrest, why did he call the police?

He called the police to come get Martin. Then he pursued Martin so he wouldn’t get away.

Wouldn't that mean Zimmerman was taking the rather large risk that the police would show up and see him illegally arresting Martin?

For all I know Zimmerman thought he had found a burglar and he would be applauded for nabbing him.

No, we don't know that. There is nothing in Dee Dee's testimony that establishes this.

Creepy-ass cracker?

And, if Martin was afraid of Zimmerman, why would he double back, after he and Zimmerman lost sight of each other, and seek Zimmerman out to confront him?

There’s no evidence that Martin sought to confront and beat up Zimmerman. If his doubling back is evidence he was looking for Zimmerman, than why isn’t Zimmerman’s pursuit evidence he was looking to nab Martin?

Martin attacked Zimmerman - that is, he initiated violence - because Zimmerman had been following him, and also because Zimmerman asked him (according to Dee Dee) what he was doing. Following someone, and asking what they are doing, is neither harm nor the threat of harm. And to repeat, if Martin was afraid of Zimmerman harming him, why did he double back from his father's house and confront Zimmerman?

I don’t know why he doubled back. He may have wished to carry on his conversation with Dee Dee in private instead of in the home.

Yes, it would be justified. It would be stupid, because punching people with guns in their hand is a bad idea, but legally it would be justified.

If you are within arms reach of someone with a gun out, depending on the scene it may be more advisable to initiate a close confrontation than to run and be shot point blank in the back. But ok.

But the evidence indicates that Martin did not know that Zimmerman had a gun, because he doubled back and confronted and attacked him. Therefore, it is unlikely that Martin feared harm from Zimmerman, since he could have walked into his own living room. He didn't - he went back and sought Zimmerman out.

He may have noticed the gun once confronted. There is no way to know what Martin knew immediately before the fight.

Zimmerman spotted Martin acting (in his opinion) suspiciously. Zimmerman then calls the NEN operator and follows Martin. The NEN operator advises Zimmerman that they don't need him to follow Martin. Zimmerman and Martin lose sight of each other, Martin makes it back to his father's house, Zimmerman then tries to find a house number or street name to arrange an exact location to meet up with the police. (You can't see house numbers from the back, which is why Zimmerman went between the houses to look for them)

It was to get an address. You can't see the street names from the back. The back is where Martin confronted Zimmerman and attacked him.

He wasn’t in the truck in the back. He was already out of the truck and in pursuit of Martin when he claimed he started to look for an address. By this point he had already left the spot he was to meet police and had walked around back. My question was why did he leave the vehicle. The answer can’t be that he got out to look for an address. The best place to look for an address is from a vehicle not by walking around back.

We know that Zimmerman was interested in law enforcement. He had probably daydreamed of catching a bad guy. This also helps us to know what Zimmerman May have been thinking when he got out and pursued Martin because his own reasoning makes no sense.

Somewhere between 3 and 4. But you have left out a couple of intervening steps, which are

2a) You are a few steps from a place of perfect safety

2b) You do not have any reason to believe he has a gun

And

3a) It is illegal to attack people for asking you questions whether you know they have a gun or not

3b) If, because he followed you and then asked you what you were doing, you knock him down, break his nose, blacken his eyes, and sit on his chest smashing his head against the ground, it is likely to lead eventually to step 4, and he is legally justified (all other things being equal) in doing so.

Regards,
Shodan

Martin attacked Zimmerman between steps 3 and 4. Zimmerman escalated the situation to step 3 at minimum according to his own testimony. Martin may have escalated it to step 3b and 4. At the very least Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter because he behaved in such a reckless way as to endanger life. We can’t have people in society bumbling around escalating conflicts with loaded guns at the ready.

If people want to pursue bad guys, they should learn how to do it. Just like someone who wants to start parasailing. If some newbie kills someone while parasailing, they should be held responsible. 170

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

He called the police to come get Martin. Then he pursued Martin so he wouldn’t get away.

Zimmerman made no statement stating or implying that the police should arrest Martin. And, according to Zimmerman's and Dee Dee's testimony, Martin did get away. Then Zimmerman called the police to arrange a meeting in an exact location.

For all I know Zimmerman thought he had found a burglar and he would be applauded for nabbing him.

"For all I know" is not evidence of Zimmerman's state of mind.

Creepy-ass cracker?

Calling somebody a racial epithet is not evidence that you are afraid they are going to illegally arrest you.

There’s no evidence that Martin sought to confront and beat up Zimmerman. If his doubling back is evidence he was looking for Zimmerman, than why isn’t Zimmerman’s pursuit evidence he was looking to nab Martin?

Because there's no evidence of a desire on Zimmerman's part to "nab" anybody. The location of the fight and the house numbers is evidence that Zimmerman was looking for house numbers. The location of Martin's father's house, the location of the fight, and Dee Dee's testimony, are evidence that Martin was close to his father's house, and doubled back. The injuries to Zimmerman are evidence that Martin attacked him. The attack is the illegal part.

I don’t know why he doubled back. He may have wished to carry on his conversation with Dee Dee in private instead of in the home.

Then obviously Martin didn't feel threatened by Zimmerman. And, of course, "I don't know" is not evidence.

He may have noticed the gun once confronted. There is no way to know what Martin knew immediately before the fight.

Sure there is. Martin doubled back and confronted and attacked Zimmerman. This is evidence that he did not know that Zimmerman had a gun, and also evidence that Martin was not feeling threatened by Zimmerman.

He wasn’t in the truck in the back. He was already out of the truck and in pursuit of Martin when he claimed he started to look for an address.

He was no longer in pursuit of Martin - he and Martin had lost sight of each other. He was looking for an address in order to give his exact location to the police.

By this point he had already left the spot he was to meet police and had walked around back. My question was why did he leave the vehicle. The answer can’t be that he got out to look for an address. The best place to look for an address is from a vehicle not by walking around back.

The house numbers are not visible from the back. That's why Zimmerman walked around to the front.

Martin attacked Zimmerman between steps 3 and 4. Zimmerman escalated the situation to step 3 at minimum according to his own testimony. Martin may have escalated it to step 3b and 4. At the very least Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter because he behaved in such a reckless way as to endanger life. We can’t have people in society bumbling around escalating conflicts with loaded guns at the ready.

Zimmerman did not endanger anyone's life before he was attacked by Martin. And he did not have a loaded gun at the ready - the fight lasted long enough to break Zimmerman's nose, blacken his eyes, and get his head smashed into the ground before Zimmerman fired.

Acting in self-defense is not manslaughter. Attacking someone because they ask you what you are doing in their neighborhood is assault and battery, and having your head smashed into the ground tends to put a reasonable person in fear of his life, or serious injury. Therefore, as far as the evidence can determine, Zimmerman acted in self-defense.

Regards,
Shodan 171

[you with the face]

WillFarnaby, there is no point in debating this with Shodan. I'm telling you this now. There is no defense for Zimmerman that doesn't necessitate being unfairly biased against the kid he killed. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

There’s no evidence that Martin sought to confront and beat up Zimmerman. If his doubling back is evidence he was looking for Zimmerman, than why isn’t Zimmerman’s pursuit evidence he was looking to nab Martin?

This is a question that anyone remotely familiar with this case should agree is a good one. If a big strange guy was chasing after a skinny teenaged girl, no one would be questioning her conduct. We'd all get that she was afraid, and thus, take it as a given that all of her actions should be judged through the lens of a panicked person.

But Martin is not afforded that consideration because it's treated as a given that he was the bad guy in this scenario. Not the big strange guy with the arrest record, whose main accomplishments in life include stalking and felony assault charges. 172

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by you with the face

WillFarnaby, there is no point in debating this with Shodan. I'm telling you this now.

You should listen to ywtf. She speaks from experience. Except what she found out is "there is no point in debating this unless you don't mind looking stupid". She doesn't; you might.

There is no defense for Zimmerman that doesn't necessitate being unfairly biased against the kid he killed.

So the jury was unfairly biased against Martin?

Apparently you still don't mind.

Regards,
Shodan 173

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Zimmerman did not endanger anyone's life before he was attacked by Martin.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.aff53d13d1c1

In July 2005, he was arrested for “resisting officer with violence.” The neighborhood watch volunteer who wanted to be a cop got into a scuffle with cops who were questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking. The charges were reduced and then waived after he entered an alcohol education program. Then in August 2005, Zimmerman’s former fiance sought a restraining order against him because of domestic violence. Zimmerman sought a restraining order against her in return. Both were granted. Meanwhile, over the course of eight years, Zimmerman made at least 46 calls to the Sanford (Fla.) Police Department reporting suspicious activity involving black males.

174

[Shodan]

This is your definition of "life-threatening"? Do you think it is roughly equivalent to knocking someone down and smashing their head into the ground?

Regards,
Shodan 175

[Helmut Doork]

Zimmerman's actions pre-fight don't need to be defended. They were biased, racist, dumb, etc. etc, but completely within the law, unless disobeying a directive from a 911 operator is a crime.

Being an asshole isn't a crime. Following someone who you claim you think is committing crime isn't a crime. Jumping that person and beating them and bashing there head on the ground IS a crime. The only crime committed that day was by Martin, and sadly, his life was lost a result. The impetuousness of youth, if you will.

Surely you recently read about Apartment Alice or Condo Cathy who approached a black gentleman who lived in her building, demanding proof he belonged there? Surely he was upset at this, but instead of beating her, as a rational adult, he documented her behavior via camera phone. If she had had a holstered gun on her hip, it would be almost the exact same scenario. Yet surely all would agree if he had responded by bashing her head in the ground, he would be in the wrong, yes? And if she had then responded by shooting him, it would be justifiable? 176

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Helmut Doork

The only crime committed that day was by Martin, and sadly, his life was lost a result.

We don't know this. Martin wasn't prosecuted and didn't have a chance to defend his conduct in court (or in any other fashion). We don't even know that Zimmerman didn't commit a crime -- just that the jury didn't find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sad to me that so many are so quick and willing to assert that a dead child is guilty of criminal behavior, when he's had no chance at all to defend himself. 177

[Helmut Doork]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

We don't know this. Martin wasn't prosecuted and didn't have a chance to defend his conduct in court (or in any other fashion). We don't even know that Zimmerman didn't commit a crime -- just that the jury didn't find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sad to me that so many are so quick and willing to assert that a dead child is guilty of criminal behavior, when he's had no chance at all to defend himself.

Gf of Martin claims on the phone he said 'get off get off', meaning Zimmerman on top of Martin, beating him, yet not a single mark on Martin to substantiate this. Gf claims after this, phone went dead while she thought a man was attacking Martin, but does not call police, "assumed he would be ok"?

Martin justifiably pissed, sizes up Zimmerman, thinks he can take him in a fight, doesn't know Zimmerman is armed, doesn't know Florida law, and sadly dies as a result.

If the KKK grand wizard is minding his own business, pumping gas, when someone recognizes him and assaults him for no other reason than who he is, that is a crime. You can be liberal and rational at the same time to get that. 178

[Richard Parker]

I'm always a little surprised by the true believers on both sides of this particular tragedy. Believing any particular version of how the fight went down means disbelieving some sworn testimony at the trial. Obviously, someone is lying or mistaken. But in those circumstances, a reasonable person reserves more than a smidgen of doubt and humility about which witnesses, exactly, testified correctly. Fundamentally, there just wasn't much reliable evidence about who started what or who was defending themselves. Everybody is forced to rely on bankshot theories based on who screamed what and what an average human would do in different situations.

So when I see people come in with metaphysical certainty about one version of the story or another, I just kinda shake my head. You can call yourself a neutral judge of the evidence, but when you display that level of certainty about inherently uncertain facts, that's a tell. It's a tell that your view of the facts is being determined by your views, and not the other way round. 179

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Helmut Doork

Gf of Martin claims on the phone he said 'get off get off', meaning Zimmerman on top of Martin, beating him, yet not a single mark on Martin to substantiate this. Gf claims after this, phone went dead while she thought a man was attacking Martin, but does not call police, "assumed he would be ok"?

Martin justifiably pissed, sizes up Zimmerman, thinks he can take him in a fight, doesn't know Zimmerman is armed, doesn't know Florida law, and sadly dies as a result.

If the KKK grand wizard is minding his own business, pumping gas, when someone recognizes him and assaults him for no other reason than who he is, that is a crime. You can be liberal and rational at the same time to get that.

Maybe this is what happened, or maybe not. We just don't know. All we know with any certainty is that the jury didn't find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty. 180

[Helmut Doork]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

Fundamentally, there just wasn't much reliable evidence about who started what or who was defending themselves. Everybody is forced to rely on bankshot theories based on who screamed what and what an average human would do in different situations.

In a case of he said she said with absolutely no other factors or evidence involved, this is correct.

Forget this case and think of this hypothetical- one person has black eyes, bashed back of head, and other obvious, real injuries. Nothing on hands or knuckles to indicate he has hit anyone. The other has no injuries of any sort- none, other than bruised knuckles. If your life was at stake, who would you guess initiated the confrontation? 181

[Helmut Doork]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

Maybe this is what happened, or maybe not. We just don't know. All we know with any certainty is that the jury didn't find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty.

Is it possible to punch someone multiple times yet have no marks of any kind on your hands or knuckles? Are we to think Zimmerman jumped Martin and proceeded to slap and tickle him? 182

[Richard Parker]

Originally Posted by Helmut Doork

In a case of he said she said with absolutely no other factors or evidence involved, this is correct.

Forget this case and think of this hypothetical- one person has black eyes, bashed back of head, and other obvious, real injuries. Nothing on hands or knuckles to indicate he has hit anyone. The other has no injuries of any sort- none, other than bruised knuckles. If your life was at stake, who would you guess initiated the confrontation?

This is missing my point. "What would I guess" is very different from "what will I self-righteously declare must have happened." I mean, you think people never lose fights they start?

ETA: And if you're gonna post the question correctly, you might note that a bullet hole counts as an injury. 183

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Helmut Doork

Is it possible to punch someone multiple times yet have no marks of any kind on your hands or knuckles? Are we to think Zimmerman jumped Martin and proceeded to slap and tickle him?

I don't know, and neither do you. Some things remain mysteries, and this is one of them.

It's also a mystery why so many are eager to (possibly) slander a dead child. 184

[Sunny Daze]

Originally Posted by Helmut Doork

Forget this case and think of this hypothetical- one person has black eyes, bashed back of head, and other obvious, real injuries. Nothing on hands or knuckles to indicate he has hit anyone. The other has no injuries of any sort- none, other than bruised knuckles. If your life was at stake, who would you guess initiated the confrontation?

Based on this, how could I possibly know? The person would more injuries could absolutely have initiated the confrontation. People pick fights with the wrong people all the time. The injuries alone do not tell the story, because they cannot provide a timeline. 185

[Helmut Doork]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

I don't know, and neither do you. Some things remain mysteries, and this is one of them.

It's also a mystery why so many are eager to (possibly) slander a dead child.

Constantly referring to a near eighteen year old as a child, while legally correct, is prejudicial to the jury. If he were standing behind you at Wal-Mart, would you dare say to the cashier "I can't find my wallet, let this child go ahead of me?" No, so why here? 186

[Helmut Doork]

Originally Posted by Sunny Daze

Based on this, how could I possibly know? The person would more injuries could absolutely have initiated the confrontation. People pick fights with the wrong people all the time. The injuries alone do not tell the story, because they cannot provide a timeline.

Agree, you cant know some things with 100% certainty. But reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence, all that, which is more likely? Not to mention that Zimmerman was a total pussy and Martin was enraged, and Martin clearly was the better fighter. I am a weenie as well, me attacking an enraged young man very angry with me and stronger than me is simply not going to happen.

And I am sure not going to engage him in hand to hand combat if I have a gun. 187

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Helmut Doork

Constantly referring to a near eighteen year old as a child, while legally correct, is prejudicial to the jury. If he were standing behind you at Wal-Mart, would you dare say to the cashier "I can't find my wallet, let this child go ahead of me?" No, so why here?

I feel no need to participate in this change of subject.

If you want to continue to slander this dead kid who had no chance to explain and defend himself, feel free, but don't expect others to retain from criticizing you for it. 188

[Helmut Doork]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

I feel no need to participate in this change of subject.

If you want to continue to slander this dead kid who had no chance to explain and defend himself, feel free, but don't expect others to retain from criticizing you for it.

Also- you cannot slander the deceased, kid or adult. 189

[chela]

Exactly! I remember during the trial visiting a friend in FLa and I mentioned Trayvon and his right to defend himself. I was blindsided when my friends husband who up to that point was his typical quiet self turned on me and defended Zimmerman vehemently against the little potsmoking thug. Wo wo wo, I turned on him and said what would you have Trayvon do, what would you have any of us do, your wife or daughter if they were being followed and acosted by a stranger? I asked him what if the stranger had a gun? what would you do? I told him i would take my middled aged ass who harbors enough resentment and rage towards strange men who acost me in the dark and I would turn banshee and jump that motherfucker before he popped a bullet in my head. You might find me hammering zimmermans damn head against the pavement too. Lets ask Trayvon what happened, oh we can't because he's dead. Lets ask Georgie, can't ask him he didn't take the stand.

That shut my host down, and shut down the argument but i didn't change his mind. 190

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Helmut Doork

Is it possible to punch someone multiple times yet have no marks of any kind on your hands or knuckles? Are we to think Zimmerman jumped Martin and proceeded to slap and tickle him?

In theory, sure. My old sensei used to say "hard target, soft weapon; soft target, hard weapon". Noses are soft targets and fists are hard weapons. Unfortunately, temples and jaws are hard targets and tend to damage the fist. So in practice, the more you punch someone, the more marks on your knuckles.

Originally Posted by Sunny Daze

Based on this, how could I possibly know? The person would more injuries could absolutely have initiated the confrontation. People pick fights with the wrong people all the time. The injuries alone do not tell the story, because they cannot provide a timeline.

Could have, sure. And therefore, in a court of law, the presumption of innocence means if you can't prove he was the initial attacker, the accused goes free.

Outside a court of law, you go by the best evidence available, which is that the person starting a fight usually suffers fewer injuries than the one being attacked - usually, not always - and that people are more likely to start fights if they think they can win them.

So there is non-definitive evidence that Martin was the first to use violence, and no evidence that Zimmerman was the first.

Add to that the other circumstances that are pretty definitely established - that Martin was definitely on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman was never on top of Martin (grass stains and moisture on Martin's knees, grass stains and moisture on Zimmerman's back, no grass stains or moisture on Martin's back or Zimmerman's knees, the witness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman bashing his head into the ground), that Martin did punch Zimmerman (Martin's knuckles, Zimmerman's nose), that Martin did bash Zimmerman's head into the ground (the gashes on the back of Zimmerman's head) - the balance of probability tends to shift.

Regards,
Shodan 191

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by chela

Wo wo wo, I turned on him and said what would you have Trayvon do, what would you have any of us do, your wife or daughter if they were being followed and acosted by a stranger? I asked him what if the stranger had a gun? what would you do?

Which course of action would you recommend -

1. Walk into your own living room and give your little brother his Skittles, or
2. Turn around and go looking for the guy?

Because "what if the stranger had a gun?"

Regards,
Shodan 192

[you with the face]

If it was simply that folks like Shodan were agnostic about whether Zimmerman (and Martin) acted lawfully, that would be one thing. It’s that they feel the need to put the kid on trial and conclude he was worth executing in cold blood that has me convinced this case is a great litmus test for racial bias.

See post above mine. Allowances are made for Zimmerman to prowl all over the goddamn place in the dark, huffing and puffing after Martin like an armed mad man. But we’re not supposed to read malicious intent in that. Nay, we are urged to see it as his god given right to chase after whomever he wants, when he wants, and not even consider the fear this probably caused in the person he hunted.

But let Martin not rush home right away—perhaps so he could hide until Zimmerman gave up looking for him—and that alone is treated as evidence of his malicious intent. Martin isn’t given any allowance to do anything except flee, while Zimmerman is allowed to kill.

Only one person that night had a true claim to “Stand Your Ground” and it wasn’t Zimmerman. 193

[chela]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Which course of action would you recommend -

1. Walk into your own living room and give your little brother his Skittles, or
2. Turn around and go looking for the guy?

Because "what if the stranger had a gun?"

Regards,
Shodan

Both? And tell brother to call cops, mom would hop in the car to give chase Dad would grab his bat and the both of us would take a walk around the neighborhood. Because that’s just what we did once many years ago when a fiend followed me home and tried to bust in my house. 194

[Folacin]

Originally Posted by Helmut Doork

Also- you cannot slander the deceased, kid or adult.

You can't be sued for it, but you can certainly slander a deceased person. 195

[Skywatcher]

Originally Posted by Helmut Doork

Also- you cannot slander the deceased, kid or adult.

Originally Posted by Folacin

You can't be sued for it, but you can certainly slander a deceased person.

That's not entirely accurate, either. Some jurisdictions allow the surviving relatives to sue. 196

[septimus]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

... So when I see people come in with metaphysical certainty about one version of the story or another, I just kinda shake my head....

Which part of my version is uncertain?
(1) Zimmerman was a wannabe cop, self-appointed protector of the neighborhood. IIRC he'd applied to be police; police said "No thanks."
(2) Zimmerman called the cops on Martin, and was advised NOT to follow Martin. (That's "NOT" with an N.)
(3) Zimmerman followed Martin anyway, with a concealed handgun.
(4) Zimmerman's behavior alarmed or upset Martin, as Martin reported via telephone.
(5) When this super-star vigilante hero was confronted by his "suspect," he was unable to talk or fight his way out, and instead delivered a fatal gun shot.

Which one of these statements do you shake your head at, Richard?

I can't be bothered to study Florida Case Law to determine a precise definition of "murder." IIUC, there are "depraved heart" rulings to criminalize behavior like Zimmerturd's. 197

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Shodan

This is your definition of "life-threatening"? Do you think it is roughly equivalent to knocking someone down and smashing their head into the ground?

Regards,
Shodan

Disregarded again because I never said that Trevor Martin was an angel. As accusations in domestic violence incidents against Zimmerman included a gun threat, you bet "life-threatening" is an appropriate thing to say. Also it is not a good idea for Zimmerman to use a confederate flag as an avatar on the internet, so one can say also that it is really dumb to defend a guy like that still.

And of course, having say that, it does not follow that one automatically believes that Martin did a sensible thing that night, it is more likely that this was a case where both people made mistakes, but one more than the other had the power to defuse the situation and instead forced the issue. You ever considered that there is the positivity that a stupid violent racist bastard induced a fight with a black guy that turned to be a reckless dumb hothead? 198

[Chisquirrel]

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

Disregarded again because I never said that Trevor Martin was an angel. As accusations in domestic violence incidents against Zimmerman included a gun threat, you bet "life-threatening" is an appropriate thing to say. Also it is not a good idea for Zimmerman to use a confederate flag as an avatar on the internet, so one can say also that it is really dumb to defend a guy like that still.

And of course, having say that, it does not follow that one automatically believes that Martin did a sensible thing that night, it is more likely that this was a case where both people made mistakes, but one more than the other had the power to defuse the situation and instead forced the issue. You ever considered that there is the positivity that a stupid violent racist bastard induced a fight with a black guy that turned to be a reckless dumb hothead?

Please. Shodan would like to believe Zimmerman was the only one in danger. Not, you know, the kid being followed home in the dark by a guy with a gun. Again, black kids don't get to stand their ground. 199

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Chisquirrel

Please. Shodan would like to believe Zimmerman was the only one in danger. Not, you know, the kid being followed home in the dark by a guy with a gun. Again, black kids don't get to stand their ground.

Not surprising. I refer you to the last paragraph in post #61 of this thread. 200