Not legally excessive no. But that’s because cops are authorized to detain and arrest people. George Zimmerman was not.
Is it starting to dawn on you yet? Cops are permitted to take actions that non-cops are not. When non-cops start acting like cops, they are called law-breaking vigilantes.
Any form of communication that enables their opponent to understand they are surrendering. This could be anything from sign language to vocalizations to running away.
The beauty of George’s big mouth is that in telling his story to the cop, he makes it crystal clear that he knew Martin had “given up”. This was the exact phrase he used when describing what “ok, I got it” meant to him. He never expressed doubt that Martin uttered this to declare his intent to stop fighting. So if we take him at his word, we have to believe he knew Martin was retreating from him. And yet he decided to tackle him anyway. Nice.
Actually, you’re the one doing that. Not me. That’s why I see his conduct at the end as symptomatic of his mentality throughout the entire struggle. In my arguments to you I’ve been presenting the chain events without factoring in when Martin was fatally wounded. You’re the one who thinks that once the gunshot went off, Zimmerman’s fear level should have instantly changed from "OMG, my life is flashing before my eyes! to “It’s a perfectly sensible course of action to hug up on this thug and search his hands for invisible weapons!” And that’s precisely because you view these as two seperate incidents, pre-shot and post-shot.
You don’t know who the attacker or attackee was. Your whole position comes from treating as fact that Martin attacked Zimmerman. Once you concede the possibility that it was Martin who was the victim, all your logic about being able to tackle someone post-fight suddenly doesn’t work anymore. Which means your logic is illogical and unfairly biased against the dead person.
And as has been exhaustively covered, there’s nothing wrong with any of that, and none of it constitutes a threat (unless he had his weapon drawn, which he didn’t)>
Utter nonsense. Martin came back to confront Zimmerman instead of going home. It was never in Zimmerman’s power to grant him passage or otherwise, as at no point did he block his path.
What verbal declaration of surrender was this? I know you’re refusing to respond to most of my posts (because I’m right, and you have no answer), but entirely inventing things like this out of nowhere is utterly out of order.
You seem to think that Zimmerman chased and caught Martin. Not only do we have no evidence that that happened, we have strong evidence that it did not happen, and indeed, given Zimmerman’s physical condition, compelling evidence that it could not have happened.
Well done for going from simple baseless speculation to actual impossibility though.
Quite obviously not. He shot him once, which is not what one does if one intends to kill. Don’t forget, Martin was still alive when the police arrived, and Zimmerman had done nothing further to harm him.
Wrong again. Citizen’s arrest, remember?
True that. Odd how you’ve been constantly supporting the arrest, conviction, and punishment of George Zimmerman, despite the fact that it’s quite possibly contrary to the law.
And please provide evidence that Martin did that at any point.
This, of course, is evidence of no such thing. Especially when we include the fact that you consider every word from Zimmerman’s mouth a lie, you may not then turn round and believe his words when they suit you. You disgusting hypocrite.
Nonsense, again. Zimmerman is the defendant, the benefit of the doubt goes to him, and none other. If we don’t know, then we must assume it may have been the way that most benefits him, and judge accordingly.
Martin, not being accused of any crime, has no such benefit of the doubt.
You do not know who the attacker was. Therefore, you may not assume it was Zimmerman. You may, though, assume it was Martin - as that causes no harm to Martin, or to Zimmerman.
I think you are fixated on the idea that someone needs to be punished for Martin’s death, regardless of the fact that it was, judging by the evidence we have, both legal and morally acceptable for Zimmerman to kill him.
This shows that, despite supposedly having read literally hundreds of explanations of the law, you still don’t understand it.
It’s entirely possible that both were in enough fear to be able to use lethal force, in the unlikely yet possible circumstance that Zimmerman, without committing a crime, put Martin in a position where he both felt that fear, and a reasonable person would feel that fear. As Zimmerman had done no wrong (in the hypothetical, before you jump on that statement), he still has full right to defend himself.
Martin, of course, had the right to do many things. He had the right to walk home, and eat his skittles and drink his soft drink - which is, of course, what he should have done. He had the right to ignore Zimmerman entirely, to ask Zimmerman what he was doing, or to call the police himself (which, if he actually felt threatened, is what he should have done, instead of confronting Zimmerman).
Afraid of imminent harm? No-one reasonable, unless there’s something more than following happening. Oh, and he wasn’t “following him with a gun”, as that’s not an action. He was following him with his eyes, his car, and then his body, and he was doing so whilst carrying a gun, a fact that is utterly irrelevant. Unless you have evidence that he brandished it, or threatened Martin with it, which you don’t.
And, despite having no evidence, you still consider him guilty. Which is disgusting.
To those who can’t or refuse to see the sensibility in you with the face’s argument, I have questions for you:
Zimmerman has to prove that he was in fear of his life. His wounds are not unequivocal evidence that he was in mortal danger. They could have just as easily been the result of clumsiness on wet grass and a single lucky punch from Martin as they could come from a viscous, brutal, rageful attack. Given this uncertainty, it then becomes necessary to look at how Zimmerman’s behavior after the shooting is consistent with the justifiable panic defense he is making.
My questions:
How do you think Zimmerman’s behavior–as both reported by witnesses and himself–supports his claim he was afraid for his life?
If you were going rewrite the story of this fateful encounter to make Zimmerman out to be the bad guy, how would the “fictional” Zimmerman’s post-shooting actions and mental state differ from those of the real-life Zimmerman.
What do you think the defense is going to present as a rebuttal when the prosecution brings all of this up?
It took Zimmerman approximately 14 seconds to get out of his vehicle, to see where Trayvon was going. If Trayvon was actually scared, he would have been long gone before Zimmerman ever had a chance to follow him. From the telephone call, with Zimmerman’s pounding his flashlight on the post, clearly heard, Z did stop. You have to stand in one place to do that. At the trial today, West said they just got the ping logs, showing Martin was moving around Sanford, far from the 7-11. Obviously, by motor vehicle. He didn’t state the time frame, but the claim Trayvon was walking to and from the 7-11 is apparently B*SH.
No, he doesn’t. How can you not understand this, after the amount of times we’ve been through it? Zimmerman has to prove nothing.
Zimmerman has to claim he was in fear of death or serious injury, and the prosecution then have to prove either that he was not in such fear, or that such fear was not reasonable, and they have to prove it to the same standard - beyond reasonable doubt - as they have to prove anything else.
So, your questions are irrelevant as they come from a false premise. If we are unsure of what happened, unsure whether or not he was in sufficient fear, then he is not guilty.
Since you didn’t answer my questions, here they are again:
How do you think Zimmerman’s behavior–as both reported by witnesses and himself–supports his claim he was afraid for his life?
If you were going rewrite the story of this fateful encounter to make Zimmerman out to be the bad guy, how would the “fictional” Zimmerman’s post-shooting actions and mental state differ from those of the real-life Zimmerman.
What do you think the defense is going to present as a rebuttal when the prosecution brings all of this up?
Or maybe you don’t think the defense is going to say anything? They will just allow the prosecution to spend hours, days, weeks on this without a single cross-examination? I’m asking how you, if you were on his defense team, would handle it. I’m curious.
*No, Zimmerman doesn’t have to prove squat. But he’s most certainly going to jail if he thinks all he has to do is make a claim and that’s it. His ass would have already done so if that’s all it takes for him to be free. No, he has to make a case just like any other criminal defendant has to do. This means countering the state’s proof with his own. You are sadly mistaken if you believe otherwise.
Seriously, do these guys expect that all Zimmerman has to do is assert he was in fear for his life to beat the prosecution? If that was the case, murder defendants would never have a disincentive to claim self-defense. They’d always claim they killed to protect themselves. Gee, I wonder why this doesn’t happen?
In today’s news, Zimmerman officially let everyone know that he won’t be seeking a SYG hearing. Do not expect to a immunity hearing at trial, because such wackadoodle ridiculousness does not exist. Only a judge can give an defendant immunity, and since this has been waived, Zimmerman’s fate entirely rests upon the jury that will hear his case at court.
There is no evidence at all that Zimmerman pursued Martin. You don’t understand the meaning of the word “pursued”. The closest Zimmerman came to an actual pursuit was when he left his truck after Martin ran. Martin was long gone by the time the Dispatcher asked him not to follow (which he did).
No, most of them claim they didn’t kill at all. But yes, all Zimmerman has to do is assert he acted in self defence, and the prosecution then has to prove that he was not. This is in accordance with the general principle that one does not have to prove innocence.
What, exactly, is your problem with the prosecution having to prove both that a crime was committed, and that the accused committed it, before any punishment can occur?
What has that link to do with anything?
Anyway, the judge may not grant immunity at trial, but that doesn’t mean a jury will necessarily hear it, or, if they do, that the judge is necessarily bound by that verdict. If, in the judges opinion, the evidence is insufficient for conviction, they may not allow a conviction even if the jury breaks the law by finding him guilty.
Do you understand yet? In a case this high profile, there is no fucking chance of any of the nonsense that sometimes allows innocent people to be convicted, so if the evidence presented at trial doesn’t prove him guilty, he will walk.
Excessive force means the exact same thing for police and civilians alike.
Checking for weapons and securing someone is a perfectly reasonable use of physical force under the Florida statute I quoted earlier. Zimmerman’s use of same was justified.
Recognizing that the circumstances changed once Martin was no longer atop of Zimmerman is just basic reasoning. Yes, once someone is no longer on top of you and beating your head, you fear level changes. Remember when you accepted that Zimmerman wouldn’t be justified in shooting Martin more times? This is why: he was no longer afraid for his life. If he was still afraid for his life, he could shoot Martin at his leisure, but you’ve stated that he could not do so. Please realize the implications of this.
You need evidence that Zimmerman was the attacker. Stating that it could have been him does not mean we have to view the events as though it was him.
Do you honest accept the argument that restraining someone who’s no longer on top of you beating your head is proof that you weren’t afraid for your life when they were on top of you and beating your head?
No, the state has to prove that he wasn’t.
His post-shooting behavior? It doesn’t support or undermine it, particularly. The physical evidence does support his claim.
If he was trying to murder Martin, he’d have shot him more times. Other than that, the differences would be represented more in the physical evidence than Zimmerman’s account of his actions right after the shooting.
Can you not imagine other defenses to murder, like “It wasn’t me”? Admitting that you were the killer is doing half of the prosecution’s work for them, conceding the external element of the crime means they just have to prove mens rea.
All he has to do is assert that he was in reasonable fear for his life, and for the prosecution to be unable to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he wasn’t.
Yes, any murder defendant can claim they killed to protect themselves. If the evidence tells a different story, they will likely be convicted. In this case, the evidence tells the same story of self-defense.
You asked whether its wrong for Zimmerman to have shot Martin once, got up to his feet, made the sign of the cross, and then commenced to shooting the kid some more. Hell yeah this is wrong, because obviously if Zimmerman felt it is safe enough to stand up and perform religious rituals right in front of the kid he just shot, then it seriously puts into question the idea that he ever was in fear for his life. This is not the behavior of someone who is trying to save their lives. A kid who is obviously subdued by one bullet does not need more bullets.
*Now apply this reasoning to what Zimmerman said actually happened *. We’re supposed to believe that Zimmerman shot Martin, then sat up, determined the kid had “given up”, and then commenced to grabbing and restraining the kid despite not realizing the kid was injured. As with before, if Zimmerman felt it safe enough to do all of this, then it seriously puts into question the notion that he ever was in fear for his life. Holding down your attacker unnecessarily makes as much as sense as performing an unnecessary religious ritual in the midst of a supposed life-and-death struggle.
See how my arguments never contradict each other? You can always predict what my position on one thing is going to be based on my positions on other, similar things. Why does it seem like there is no common cord tying all your arguments together? I suspect this is why you keep getting confused over simple stuff.
And this just underscores your failure to understand what self-defense is. A person has to have a reasonable belief of imminent harm. Shooting someone at their leisure is incompatible with reasonable belief.
There is no better evidence that he was the attacker than the fact that he’s been charged with murder. If there was no evidence for this, there would be no case and he’d be a free man. So what, do you think the mulitple judges and lawyers and detectives who have spent more than a year looking at all the data against this guy have it all wrong? Such an arrogant position for someone who thinks cops and non-cops are held to the same standards under the law.
Rather than sitting there refusing to believe Zimmerman should go to prison for murder, you should be asking yourself exactly how in hell he will keep himself out of prison.
And I’m still waiting for you to cough up all those acquitted self-defense cases involving defendants who fought with their “attackers”, used lethal force, and then escalated conflict rather than withdrew force.
You really don’t have a fucking clue, do you? It’s thinking like that that leads to police states. The sole reason Zimmerman has even been charged is to satisfy the lust for meaningless vengeance people like you have, and your inability to think critically for yourself. Do not, ever, uncritically believe what someone in authority tells you - find out the facts, and think for yourself.
People like you are far more dangerous that Zimmerman could ever be, even if everything you think about him is true.
He won’t need to “keep himself” out of prison, that’s another misunderstanding of the law to add to the many you have. It’s the sole responsibility of the state to justify putting him in there.
Why? They would have nothing to do with this case, where there is no evidence that Zimmerman fought with Martin (see the complete lack of injuries to Martin), or that he escalated the conflict. He was under no obligation at any point to withdraw.
I have absolutely no doubt that, had he withdrawn after shooting Martin, you would be criticising him for attempting to flee a “crime scene” - quotes because there appears to have been no crime - as you have no interest in facts, law, or justice, simply in blind vengeance because someone of a similar skin colour to yours has been killed.
No, sorry. It’s wrong and illegal because when those hypothetical shots were fired, Zimmerman wouldn’t have been in fear for his life. THAT is the legal standard. In the same way, Zimmerman’s actions after he was no longer afraid for his life do not negate that he was in reasonable fear for his life when he fired the shot.
Look at the case of Jerome Ersland.. He shot a robber in the head, which left the man alive but unconscious. After pursuing the robber’s partner, Ersland returned to his store, retrieved another pistol, and shot the robber again.
The court found that Ersland’s initial shot was legal and justified self-defense. He was convicted because the additional shots were deadly force not in the face of a reasonable fear of an imminent threat, NOT because the extra shots proved that he hadn’t had a reasonable fear when he fired the first shot.
You are simply mistaken.
No, wrong again. You can ignore the massive difference in circumstances between being pinned and beaten and not being pinned and beaten, but it’s senseless.
They are based on the erroneous belief that there can be no change in state of mind between having an attacker on your chest beating you, and not having an attacked on your chest beating you, as well as the idea that dangerous people aren’t to physically restrained, only safe ones, seemingly relying on the honor system to prevent a renewed attack. That’s no consistency to be proud of.
My common cord is what it has been: the law, and common sense. Zimmerman’s actions, based on the evidence we have, were all reasonable, justified uses of force.
That’s the logical conclusion of your argument, I’m afraid. If changes in circumstance don’t change the level of fear involved, then it doesn’t matter how much time has passed, the binary fear-of-death switch has been thrown.
If changes in circumstance do change the level of fear, then someone can go from fearing for their life to fearing for their physical safety when the person threatening their life ceases to do so. You can’t have it both ways.
Wow. You are completely wrong. The existence of an accusation is not evidence that the accusation is true. We left the Star Chamber behind in Britain, and have presumption of innocence instead. If you don’t think innocent people get accused, and convicted, of crimes, start here.
They are, in many ways. I’m sorry you know so little about these matters.