You’re welcome to explain how you would have (and include specifics to counter-act Zimmerman’s particular mistakes) dealt it differently.
He did have plenty of opportunity to avoid him - you try to ignore these three aspects :
A) Zimmerman wasn’t doing anything wrong. As been pointed out previously he could have been running after Martin naked and drunk hollering like an Indian and shouting “Your mother is a whore” while a holstered weapon hung from his hip.
His only crimes would be public intoxication, public indecency and disturbing the peace.
B) Zimmerman was just another guy, yet he also was known in the community, he was a watch member and he had knowledge of prior illegal activity in the neighborhood.
This helps dilute the impression that Zimmerman had unlawful or malicious intent. It gives an indication of his worthwhile motive.
Consider that even someone who isn’t a watch member, would still be within their rights to do what Zimmerman did.
C) Evidence. Unfortunately in this type of case, it pretty much is the end-all, despite how frustrating it may be.
You’re just jealous because you never could take part in the “who can piss highest up a wall” contest.
If I was as concerned as Z was, I’d have a zero tolerance approach to strangers and without trying to be intimidating I’d ask if they were visiting. If they got hostile, or reacted in any kind of suspicious manner, then I’d consider getting the police involved. I know Trayvon wouldn’t have pinged my radar enough to be getting the police involved immediately.
In South Alabama he’d be shot without the holstered weapon. Is Florida more civilised?
Up to, but not including trying to restrain a suspicious person.
There is witness evidence that the fight didn’t go quite like Z described it, and enough inconsistencies to warrant a trial, and that’s the point most people wanted it to reach.
Your above theory works IF A) You were not worried that a potential repeat offender would get away and B) That the person in question isn’t just a loose cannon to begin with.
Zimmerman could have done just as you suggest and Martin might have become violent anyways (whether with Zimmerman or the police).
Particular to this case or this type of case, evidence-to-the-contrary is the only way you’ll prove Zimmerman was attempting to assert physical control or violence on Martin.
Possibly in a different scenario, maybe even more akin to the O.J. Simpson trial; however having said that, read the preface on this following page, and then the quick comments by the involved individuals.
The key points there are :
-Entertainment is not education; media is not law
-The public is quite ignorant on these matters
-It’s a search for justice, not for truth
-Burden of the prosecution, reasonable doubt and how it actually works
No I am not…I am laying down my opinions. Notice I have deferred to people on this thread who are actually lawyers. I am not deferring to you. I don’t agree with you or your interpretations of the evidence or your characterizations of Martin.
Because in order to be a threat under the law, it must clearly and unambiguously communicate:
(1) That the actor intends to commit an act of physical violence;
(2) That the actor intends to commit that act imminently, right at that moment;
(3) That the actor has the present capability to do so;
(4) That the victim has a well-founded fear of such imminent act. See, e.g., State v. White, 324 So. 2d 630 (Fl. 1975).
If the only thing a person has done is follow you for ten minutes and then come up to you, that alone cannot meet those requirements. With no words spoken, no gestures made that indicate imminent violence, just someone approaching you cannot be a threat for the purposes of the criminal statute.
You may say, truthfully, that you felt fear – but the fear alone is not enough; you must also be able to identify the specific item that communicated the threat. As the Florida courts said in Benitiz v. State, 901 So.2d 935 ( Fl. DCA 2005):
That’s the law in Florida. With cites.
Of course I don’t know what Zimmerman might have said to Martin – this is in response to you, saying you’d use a weapon or fight if someone followed you for ten minutes and then came up to you.
To be more definitive, I believe the evidence we know about is not legally sufficient to support a charge of second-degree murder. I do believe the evidence we know about is legally sufficient to support a charge of manslaughter.
Do you think the evidence we know about is sufficient to disprove Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense? I assume disproving the claim is as necessary to convict for manslaughter as it is for second-degree murder.
But if someone who came up to me yelling like that (as relayed by DeeDee), yeah, that might do it. I think (3) and (4) can be established (IMO, correct me if I am wrong).
(1) and (2) can be argued as well, by listening to the call Zimmerman made. “they always get away”? Maybe his actions were taken to keep Martin from getting away.
This is where you have to ask yourself, what purpose would Zimmerman’s actions would have served?.
I don’t buy the BS that he was just ‘asking him a question’ and ‘keeping an eye on him’ or that he was looking for an address.
You gave a conditional,** bricker**,–IF. That’s not all that Zimmerman did. But I understand what you are saying. And also Martin is dead. But DeeDee’s statements (as well as Zimmerman’s) is enough for me.
Dee Dee made no such mention of Zimmerman coming up to Martin yelling.
That’s unfortunate, because she said nothing of the sort.
[QUOTE=Dee Dee]
And then he told me like the guy was getting close..like..and he told me the guy was getting real close to him. The next I hear, “What are you following me for?”
[/QUOTE]
Notice that there is no mention of yelling, and the first person to speak was Martin.
To add to Shodan’s question, does the immunity from legal action provided by the SYG law prevent a charge of manslaughter, if it’s shown he did act in self defence?
Your unremarkable teenager literally went out of his way to confront someone and then assault him. He did this of his own free will. The neighborhood watch guy chose to call the police. He did this of his own free will. One of those choices was legal and one of them was illegal.
I have no doubt you just posted yet another one of your imagined scenarios without any evidence. Because you did.
And yet he attacked Zimmerman.
He was in his own neighborhood. It’s not “turf” it’s where he lives.
Yes, the evidence shows he left the general area of his house and approached Zimmerman. And then the evidence shows he attacked him.
You have no evidence except your imagination. Best of luck getting that entered into the court records.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Martin didn’t “go out of his way” to do anything. He was defending himself against the psycho who later killed him. what Martin did was self-defense. Zimmerman was the one in the wrong.
Martin was defending himself.
And?
No, it does not. It certainly shows Zimmerman following Martin.
Yeah, like a jury will buy the bullshit you’re saying? Please. Again, I have to ask, is this is an internet only thing? Do people around you know your views and approve of them?
I will repeat, a jury DOES NOT HAVE TO BUY THIS. And they probably won’t.
How do you come to that conclusion? Based on the bullet forensics, witness statements and general evidence - what dots connect together to place Zimmerman in a position of complete and unscrupulous aggression?
Again dots..even if Zimmerman was chasing Martin, where is the cross over to murdering him?
A jury won’t buy into anything; a good jury sees the information presented and makes a decision.
As I mentioned before on this page, a court of law is not about finding the truth - it’s about finding justice.
A man in jail put there by a jury that was 1% in doubt, is not justice under our system.
I am curious why you ask this so often of those whose point of view is different to yours?
I get the impression that with this question you are implying only a racist could view the known evidence and conclude that Zimmerman will not be found guilty.
Here’s the problem – again, from a legal point of view. It’s not enough to say that “it can be argued.” A jury has to hear specific evidence for an element of a crime.
In State v. Von Deck, 607 So. 2d 1388 (Fl. 1992), the court said:
And this isn’t a matter of the jury maybe deciding it anyway, even though they’re told not to. If the only evidence for (1) and (2) is the inference of Zimmerman saying, “They always get away,” the jury won’t even get to do their job. Since the state can’t use that to prove (1) or (2), the judge will stop the case after the state finishes presenting evidence.
So, no – you can’t say that Zimmerman saying “They always get away,” can be used to show (1) or (2). You have to show them directly.
