There’s a hearing going on in this case. There is no evidence or data that DD ever connected to Trayvon’s phone.
Wait, what?
Do I read that correctly?
I assume you mean, “Apart from Deedee’s testimony, there is no other evidence…”
The main point of Stand Your Ground laws is, as the name implies, that one should not have to retreat from an aggressor. Zimmerman’s failure to retreat was perfectly legal, as was restraining Martin - unless you have evidence Martin clearly told Zimmerman he was no longer attacking him.
This just in from the hearing. There is ping log evidence that Trayvon didn’t walk to and from the 7-11, that he was actually a considerable distance from the area. (presumably by motor vehicle).
If I heard correctly about the ping logs, what difference does it make? Her story isn’t adding up. What good is verbal evidence that doesn’t match physical evidence? Apparently Trayvon didn’t walk, but was in a vehicle. She claimed he walked back, even running part of the way, to the mail thing. Half a mile or so=40 minute walk. Her story always was questionable. It was also admitted at the hearing that DD had help writing her statement. DD appears to be toast.
Not when “getting away” is a viable and inifintely more sensible option.
Again, he did not need to run. He could have walked, crawled, or rolled away.
Zimmerman was not the frail, near-crippled man that you’re making him out to be. Surveillance footage showed him walking briskly at the police station moments after the shooting. He even pulled himself out of the police car unassisted despite being handcuffed (which is actually pretty difficult to do). So its absurd to think he was couldn’t have gotten away from Martin. He didn’t even try.
So if there’s this chance that he’ll get back up–and he’s already proven to you that he can kick your ass without hardly breaking a sweat–then it makes zero sense to risk antagonizing him further. Getting on top of him and holding him down is antagonizing behavior. It’s not the type of thing you do when you want to make peace. It’s the exactly the type of thing an asshole does.
But why not? You either have fear that someone or something poses an imminent threat to your life, or you don’t have this fear. If Zimmerman assessed the situation and concluded that he could overpower the kid just with his weight–even after supposedly experiencing the beatdown of his life–then this completely belies the idea that he felt helpless in the face of a stronger opponent. He passed up the opportunity to retreat in favor of the more riskier option of applying force.
It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about a jungle cat or a teenaged boy. The psychology should be same.
No. You’re only allowed to apply enough force to stop imminent threat to your person. Shooting Martin, then pausing to stand up and cross himself, and then shooting again is excessive.
Just like shooting Martin, then jumping on top of him and holding him down is also excessive. There is where the legality matters. When he admitted that Martin “gave up” when the gun went off, Zimmerman should have let the kid retreat from him. But he didn’t. Instead, he immediately jumped on the kid and prevented his exodus. He pursued Martin, not the other way around.
Let me ask you this: At what point in their fight are we supposed to believe Martin ever was allowed the opportunity to walk away peacefully from Zimmerman? If Zimmerman jumped on top of him at the end of the fight, why should we believe he wouldn’t have done the same thing if Martin had simply punched him once in the nose? His argument for doing so would always be the same: to prevent him from hitting him any further. The problem is that this type of rationale is not legally justifiable. You can’t pin someone to the ground just because they might swing on you.
“Sensible” has nothing to do with it. The legal and ethical standard here is reasonable behavior. It doesn’t matter what the wisest, most optimal choice was. I think there’s a good case to be made for Zimmerman’s choice to restrain Martin being the most sensible one, which I’ve already discussed, but it doesn’t matter, because there’s nothing wrong with making a sub-optimal choice in this situation.
If he was healthy enough to flee, he’s also healthy enough to restrain Martin. Both are reasonable choices. He has about two seconds to choose one.
This is the third or fourth lap on this, but once more: Martin unexpectedly struck Zimmerman in the face, and got on top of him. Life isn’t a fighting game where the guy with the higher stats always wins.
Who gives a shit about antagonizing him? Martin was pretty damned antagonized to start with, given the beating he was administering. Zimmerman’s priorities were in order: prevent Martin from beating him any more. There are several ways to accomplish that: flight, restraint, shooting more, kicking Martin in the skull, and so on. Zimmerman made the reasonable, in-the-moment choice of restraint, once the also-reasonable use of his pistol removed the immediate lethal threat.
Are you arguing based on evidence, or the kind of person you think Zimmerman must be? Even assholes are allowed to defend themselves. Whether Zimmerman is an asshole is irrevelant.
So fear is binary: either you fear an imminent threat to your life, or you fear nothing. The law doesn’t work like this (hence the difference between defense with force and with deadly force), common sense doesn’t work like this, the human brain doesn’t work like this.
Zimmerman (possibly, I don’t know how much concluding he was doing versus acting on instinct) concluded he could overpower Martin once Martin was no longer on top of him and beating his head. That is a game-changer, ma’am. A husky 12-year-old could do some real damage to me if they were on my chest beating my head into concrete; much less so if they were on the ground and I was atop of them.
You conclude that using force was riskier than flight. Zimmerman, reasonably, concluded (same caveat as above) otherwise.
Then the threat isn’t vested in the person of the threat, but also the situation. When the situation changes, so does the threat.
If Zimmerman jumped on Martin and started pistol-whipping him or choking him, you might have a point. But he didn’t, he jumped on him and checked his hands for weapons. There is nothing excessive about that.
Um, if Martin punched Zimmerman once in the nose, Zimmerman can use reasonable physical force to protect himself. That includes tackling.
You can’t pin someone because they might swing on you, but you can once they have swung on you.
Yes actually you can, if your belief that they’ll swing is reasonable. Why do you keep ignoring the law on this subject? It’s quite clear, and had been repeatedly explained to you.
This is another example of why your views on this matter are worthless, and why I’ll not respond point by point to your absurdly long posts. Until you start dealing with what actually happened that night, and with the actual law involved, your opinion is irrelevant.
To follow up, here is Florida’s statute covering non-deadly force in self-defense:
It’s actually very simple: you can only use deadly force to defend yourself from death or grievous bodily harm, but you can use non-deadly force to defend yourself from any kind of unlawful force.
A reasonable person would reasonably conclude that the attacker who’d been beating their head two seconds before required reasonable non-deadly force, ie restraint, to prevent a continued attack.
So Zimmerman could pretty much do anything he wanted to to Martin because he was in fear of his life, but Martin, who could very well have been in fear for his life, had no right to do anything but stand there and answer all Zimmerman’s questions?
I suppose the fact that we can’t ask Martin if he was in fear for his life would skew things the Zimmerman way. Tough break there, taking that bullet to the chest and all.
Fucking weird law.
The fear must be reasonable. There is evidence that Zimmerman’s use of force was based on a reasonable fear: he was beaten.
What evidence is there that Martin’s hypthetical fear of imminent physical harm was reasonable?
All we, and the court, can do is weigh the evidence we have.
That’s bog-standard self-defense law. Again, this is only tangentially a Stand Your Ground case.
Of course, you’re right. Who would possibly be afraid of some creepy guy following him around in the dark with a gun?
That’s a quip, not an answer. I’m asking in all sincerity, what evidence is there that Martin’s hypthetical fear of imminent physical harm was reasonable? If you think Martin knew that Zimmerman was armed, include that. Otherwise, that doesn’t factor in at all.
There is none, because the only witness who could testify to it is dead.
No, Martin wasn’t under any obligation to answer questions or stand there. He would have been perfectly within his rights to walk off, stay by his father’s house, or tell Zimmerman to go pound sand.
He did not have the right to assault Zimmerman. Which the evidence to date seems to indicate he did. Zimmerman did not have the right to assault Martin. There is no evidence to date that he did.
[QUOTE=you with the face]
So if there’s this chance that he’ll get back up–and he’s already proven to you that he can kick your ass without hardly breaking a sweat–then it makes zero sense to risk antagonizing him further. Getting on top of him and holding him down is antagonizing behavior. It’s not the type of thing you do when you want to make peace.
[/QUOTE]
According to Zimmerman’s statement, and the other evidence, Martin had already tried to kill Zimmerman. And Martin was on his chest. What was Zimmerman supposed to do, lie there and cuddle?
Regards,
Shodan
That doesn’t preclude other evidence. If Martin were wounded, if Zimmerman had injuries on his right hand and arm that might be indicative of fighting for control of a pistol rather than just wounds to his head, if Martin were shot in the back instead of the chest, if Zimmerman wasn’t wounded or hadn’t been struck multiple times, if Martin had torn clothes consistent with someone grabbing him as he pulled away…all of this could be suggestive that Martin attacked out of a reasonable fear. I’m sure you can think of similar evidence that might exist as an outcome of whatever scenario you have in mind.
The lack of any of this sort of evidence is telling, however.
You can fear something all you want, but you can’t shoot someone lawfully if you don’t have reasonable fear of an imminent threat. And yes this is a binary thing if we’re trying to determine if Zimmerman broke the law by killing Martin.
There is no such thing as “Gee, I thought he was about to take my life, your honor, but only a little bit!”
Yup, and his fatass is charged with murder. Looks like he reached the wrong conclusion.
He grabbed the kid by his wrists and held him to the ground so that he couldn’t get away. There is plenty excessive about that.
Not when they’ve indicated surrender, no you can’t. Until you get that through your head, around and around we go.
If you’re saying that Zimmerman was well in his rights to tackle and restrain Martin --even after he allegedly verbalized surrender–then you’re basically saying the kid didn’t have the right to defend himself. You’re also saying that Zimmerman was entitled to applying however much force he wanted to protect himself from the potential of Martin’s fists, but the kid somehow wasn’t even entitled to the luxury of running away from Zimmerman. The precious gift of retreat: even that was too much of a crumb to hand the kid. He was destined to have a 200-lb oaf on his back no matter what he said or did, and according you, that is the way it should’ve been.
Can you not see how biased this foolishness is? I’m glad you’re posting your views, because its often easy to forget that there are people who think some folks are subject to a different set of rules than others based merely on their demographic group membership.
Forgot about that pesky “innocent until proven guilty” thing again, have we?
Not by any reasonable standard.
Yes, you do.
Regards,
Shodan
I thought we were on the same page here, and discussing Zimmerman’s post-shooting actions, but based on the above we clearly are not. So, I’ll break it down:
Martin on Zimmerman’s chest, head being beaten = reasonable fear of loss of life or grievous bodily injury.
Martin on the ground = reasonable fear of unlawful force.
Well, you may ask, what changed? Martin stopped being on Zimmerman’s chest, and stopped beating his head. In between we have the shot fired, a shot fired in the reasonable fear of loss of life or grievous bodily injury. After the shot, we have Zimmerman acting with reasonable force to protect himself from non-lethal, unlawful force.
Depends on if he’s convicted or not. Charges being filed is not a finding of fact.
You wrote that it was hard to take my posts seriously; what effect do you think use of terms like “asshole” and “fatass” have on taking you seriously?
There’s no intent to cause injury, and nothing beyond what was necessary to protect Zimmerman. It’s pretty close to the absolute minimum amount of force one can even use: no blows struck, no choke hold, no injuries inflicted.
If a police officer had done the same thing, do you think a court would find the use of force excessive?
To your mind, what form must that indication take?
No, Zimmerman was entitled to use reasonable, proportionate force. Which he did.
You’re viewing this as two separate fights, pre-shot and post-shot, and demanding some sort of fresh accounting by Zimmerman in the interval. Considering that about two or three seconds passed in the interval, it’s only good sense to treat it as one incident, because that’s what any normal human being would do.
The different sets of rules apply to attacker and attacked, which is not a demographic group.
The evidence is that Zimmerman pursued him first by truck, then by foot, in the dark of the night, with a lethal weapon. Never identified himself or explained his conduct towards him, and had clearly profile him as a criminal that needed to be nabbed by the cops
Other evidence is that Zimmerman never showed or admitted any willingness to grant Martin free passage. Even if we ignore the “these assholes always get away” quip, Zimmerman’s own mouth demonstrates he ignored Martin’s verbal declaration of surrender in favor of grabbing him and holding him against his will. This is evidence that Martin was justified in SYG to the best of his ability. Because his opponent was determined to subdue him by any means necessary and he had every reason to think this guy was about to kill him.
And he was right.