Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread

In My Humble Opinion
12344

But Zimmerman starts his murderous career during a trip to Target? Neither party planned this encounter, nobody set out looking violence that night.

I think you lost track of the question, it was reasons Martin might attack Zimmerman unprovoked.

“What are you doing here?”…

He was fond of street fighting and had a variety of disciplinary problems. Not a gangster, but not averse to fighting or making bad decisions.

Right, she told him to run, and he did. Young men aren’t overly fond of seeming weak and frightened, and young Southern men in particular aren’t fond of slights to their honor.

You lost track of the issue again, these aren’t assumptions, they are reasonable possibilities.

I didn’t mention Martin’s attire.

What ambush? In both Zimmerman’s account and Ms. Jeantel’s, Martin speaks first. There was no ambush.

That makes anti-sense. How could Martin attack Zimmerman for his offensive question (or questions) before Zimmerman spoke them?

Or, impair his judgment.

I asked politely for you not to tease me. Show me the evidence; make your case that Zimmerman had reasons to capture Martin and what they were. Don’t just tell me it’s in the NEN call, tell me what you’re referring to and what you think it means.

12345

Nah, that might appear threatening. If you really want to go for the one punch knock out, you have to be face to face with your target and you have to talk to them at least a little to assess how much their guard is up.

Here is why it is so hard for me to figure what happened. If Martin is scared and feels threatened he might want to end the threat right away. If running isn’t the choice then one punching the cracker just might be. In that scenario, I can’t imagine him saying “You got a problem now”. I’d expect something less antagonistic, then POW! Right in the kisser.

If he isn’t scared and and is just blustering I suppose he could say something like that. Then Zimmerman goes for the phone. Trayvon suspects he is going for a gun? Fight and struggle ensues, actual gun is spotted, end result is Trayvon dead.

Still a whole lot of speculation required to get through. I agree with Septimus, it was reckless of Zimmerman to “go after”, “go looking for”, or exit the vehicle at all. It is neighborhood watch, not neighborhood pursue.

12346

I agree, but one guy set out to “get a bad guy” after his trip to the store. And boy did he get him.

Remember that was Martins question (according to Zimmerman).

I do wonder if we’d be talking about this if he didn’t look like he did. You speak like you know this is how Trayvon thought? So Ill ask you to prove it. Why is it that Trayvon can reasonably be found guilty of being a thug based on where he lives, but any question of Zimmerman’s motives must be backed up by books of evidence.

Yes, I just wonder why talk at all if you jump out of the bushes or darkness and intend to beat on Zimmerman?

No you contadict your boy’s testimony. Zimmerman never asked a single question to Martin according to his interviews. So I guess martin would have attacked (and I doubt martin attacked unprovoked) before he could be offended by Zimmerman.

12347

You didn’t answer me…
[/QUOTE]

We’re not in the Pit. Are we allowed to call other Doper’s thinking childish?

You write as though you do embrace the notion that “two wrongs make a right.” In American schools, 3rd-grade teachers try to disabuse kids of that notion. Where did you go to school, Terr?

Even more childish, you refuse to answer my question until I answer your self-answering question, despite that my query about “two wrongs” implies that Martin was wrong.

If you need everything spelled out then, Yes, it was wrong for Martin to lose his temper and attack the asshole wannabe who was harassing him, assuming that’s how the incident went down. What’s your point? Should we dig Martin’s corpse up and sentence it to a jail term? Have you ever done anything wrong, Terr? Did you pay for it with your life?

I’ve tried to explain why it’s immoral and cowardly to provoke a fist fight while carrying a concealed handgun you’re willing to use. I won’t try to explain this further – those who don’t get it just suffer from some blindspot in ethics or common sense.

12348

Zimmerman’s on trial, Martin isn’t. That’s why.

12349

You keep saying that…why can’t you, or won’t you, tell me where in the NEN call Zimmerman says he’s going to get a bad guy, or provides a reason he might do so?

No, Zimmerman’s version has Martin approaching him and saying “You got a problem?” Zimmerman then says “No, I don’t have a problem” and goes for his phone, and Martin says “You got one now” and punches him.

The “Why are you following me?” / “What are you doing here?” exchange is from Ms. Jeantel’s testimony, not Zimmerman’s account.

You mean if he wasn’t a young man? Sure. If Martin were female or in his 40s, I’d consider is less likely for him to start a fight.

I’ve said twice now that this isn’t the case. These are reasonable possibilities, which are part of a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started the fight. They are not facts.

Ideally, speculation about either of their motives should be backed up with evidence. Speaking of, what evidence do you have of Zimmerman’s motive?

I don’t know, I’ve never beat on anyone. But words were exchanged, witnesses heard it, as did Ms. Jeantel on the phone. So neither party just leapt out and attacked the other.

He’s not my boy.

If you accept Zimmerman’s version and not Ms. Jeantel’s, then Martin was already angry and spoiling for a fight when he approached Zimmerman at the T (“You got a problem? You got one now”), and punched him in the face.

Obviously, if Zimmerman’s version is true, then Zimmerman was acting in self defense when he fired.

Any use of Zimmerman’s story is met with a deluge of “He’s a liar! He’s the one on trial!”, which is fair to a point, so I was using Ms. Jeantel’s version. If you accept Zimmerman’s as true, then…case closed, I guess.

12350

So the jury has three choices? Murder, just manslaughter, neither. I would assume that the “reasonable doubt” and “self-defence” arguments that make not guilty the proper Murder verdict would also apply to Manslaughter. Does jury now have the “opportunity” to send a (legally unsound) “message”?

12351

Right. Florida manslaughter statute:

Bolding mine. In chapter 776 we find 776.012:

So, if the jury doesn’t believe self-defense was disproven beyond a reasonable doubt, they can’t convict on manslaughter either.

12352

Not necessarily - the jury may have reasonable doubt as to the ‘depraved state of mind’ bit required for Murder 2, but be confident that Zimmerman’s reckless actions resulted in Martin’s death. That’s certainly what I’d vote for if on the jury.

Either way, I think you’re right in that the jury would have to agree that use of lethal force was not justified since the threat of death or grave bodily harm was not ‘imminent’ or ‘reasonable’.

12353

Just want to pimp my thread on a completely hypothetical incident:
So I am on a lonely road in Florida

12354

To be completely fair, Zimmerman told the police he forgot he was wearing the gun. But in my opinion, this just makes things worse.

IMO, when you are the owner of a gun, it is your responsibility to know where it is at all times. The fact that Zimmerman admits to losing control of the gun (he can’t have control if he doesn’t know where it is), should add criminal negligence to the list of charges being brought against him.

12355

Florida has a statute for culpable negligence.

Which part did Zimmerman violate by having his pistol securely in his holster, even if in the heat of the moment he lost conscious awareness of it?

12356

That’s in your opinion. But since the law in Florida doesn’t consider that an act of criminal negligence, what you’re saying in more spelled out form is (I think):

The fact that Zimmerman admits to losing control of the gun (he can’t have control if he doesn’t know where it is), should add criminal negligence to the list of charges being brought against him, if only Florida’s law comported with my view of how the law should read - which, sadly, it does not.

Yes?

12357

Anybody who believes that bullshit about Zimmerman’s claim that he forgot he had his gun with him is either completely in the tank for Zimmie, or incredibly gullible.

12358

Do you carry a concealed firearm, by any chance?

12359

No. I’m not that afraid of life.

12360

Well, I do. I carry a pistol similar to Zimmerman’s, actually: small and lightweight. And I carry it the same way he did: inside-the-waistband holster, just behind the right hip.

Once you’ve carried a pistol like that for a while, it’s not something you’re actively thinking about any more than you think about your wallet or keys.
Furthermore, if Zimmerman did have conscious awareness of his pistol at all times during the encounter, that actually makes his claim of self-defense stronger, since he waited until he was pinned and beaten to draw it. I doubt I’d have been so restrained.

12361

IANAL and the more I learn about Florida’s stupid Stand-your-ground law, etc. etc. etc. the happier I am that IANAL. Many of us examine the facts in a case like this primarily on the basis of Right and Wrong or what we think the law should be. We do realize that this will confuse those whose preoccupation with legal procedures have blinded them to ordinary concepts like Right and Wrong. But that doesn’t make our view less correct, in our context, nor hyper-legal views less wrong.

I filed a civil suit once, in a case so open-and-shut I should have tried to litigate it by myself. I ended up with two lawyers, one who cheated me, one who insulted me. The one who insulted me also cheated the IRS, so I think I ended up paying income tax on his half of the settlement as well as my own.

“Present company excepted,” I tend to agree with the character in Shakespeare’s King Henry VI, Part 2:
[QUOTE=Dick]
The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.
[/QUOTE]

12362

They say a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. A liberal is a conservative who has been indicted.

Regards,
Shodan

12363

Yes :slight_smile: That’s why I preceded with IMO, which I thought was in my opinion. If I were writing laws, I would definitely push for something that makes him responsible.