Correct. When discussing the trial of Zimmerman, Martin is owed no special deference.
When discussing martin’s actions in some other context, and accusing him of a crime, you have to adduce evidence of it…just like you have to do when accusing Zimmerman.
No. That’s not true, and never has been. Neither of those statements is true, or representative of my beliefs.
You might want to pay more attention to what my position actually is before you critique it.
I might feel threatened. I, personally, would go home, because I, personally would feel safer there. I quite possibly would, if I couldn’t get home easily, confront the person. Zimmerman does not need to explain why he didn’t identify himself, but it looks like Martin gave him very little chance to before punching (per Jeantal’s testimony), and all your reasoning about Martin being scared also applies to Zimmerman, when confronted by this suspicious stranger he’d lost sight of suddenly confronting him.
I don’t need to deny any of them, they are not a problem.
No, that’s not why Zimmerman was defending himself, per his own statement.
It’s a silly and irrelevant opinion.
This. In fact I’m pretty much in agreement with your summary of this whole sorry affair.
If all the circumstances were the same, except Martin had lived - say, Zimmerman shot him in the arm, and no further violence occurred before the police arrived - would there, in your professional opinion, be probable cause to arrest Martin for assault?
Huh? Of course I condemn this woman’s attack on the singer, who wouldn’t? But I see no reason to believe it was because of the singer’s mention of Martin, especially since the reports that she was seen walking toward the stage before any such mention was made.
Wrong recap. If Zimmerman has a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, his use of lethal force is justified. If Martin has a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, then his use of lethal force is justified. See how it works?
The hypothetical racist bogeymen various people (including you and I) have been accused of being. It seemed to me you were suggesting that he did something to provoke her, absent any evidence of that, but it appears I was wrong. Sorry about that.
Probable cause exists when all the facts and circumstances within the police officer’s knowledge would lead a reasonable person to believe that the suspect has committed a crime.
So let’s be clear on what our police officer would know.
He’d know Zimmerman’s statements about what happened. He’d see Zimmerman’s injuries. If Martin said nothing at all, then, yes. There’d be probable cause to arrest Martin.
BUT – that’s not remotely likely, is it?
Martin would presumably have some statement to offer to explain events. And that statement would also be part of the facts and circumstances within the police officer’s knowledge, yes?
So you tell me: what does Martin say? What he says can change the probable cause calculus.
Splendid. So having been stalked by an unidentified person, Martin had reasonable fear of bodily harm?
Agreed, but then we are not in the same situation. We can only judge on what we actually know, and based on that, and that alone, there is probable cause to arrest him.
If Martin claims that he was defending himself against Zimmerman, who had his gun drawn and was chasing and threatening him all the while, with no supporting witnesses, and Zimmerman denies this, and claims Martin was the aggressor, again with no witnesses other than those that exist in the real case, I would think there would be probable cause to arrest both of them. Am I wrong?
Or is there something else Martin could have said that would prevent that?
No. Being followed (“stalked” is a legal term that does not apply in this circumstance) is not enough to create a “reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm”.
No, or at the very least, not imminent harm or attack, which is the standard.
Z had a gun. We only have his word for how or if he had deployed the gun, or if he had pointedly allowed Martin to know he possessed one. You may, if you wish, take all of Z’s statements as gospel truth, but that isn’t evidence, that’s witnessing.
I see your point. Hitting someone isn’t always a crime.
But it wasn’t just a punch. We’re talking about someone knocking a person down and then mounting them and repeatedly hitting them and bashing them into the concrete.
I guess I could find some wiggle room in there somewhere that the scenario is possible and not a crime. But, I’d say 99% chance it was.
I’ll put it this way. If Zimmerman had been unarmed and simply continued to get beaten for a couple minutes until the cops showed up I think it’s highly likely that the cops would have arrested Martin for assault. Sure, we can’t know for certain, though.
We may either believe Zimmerman, or we may accept we don’t know what happened. Neither makes Zimmerman guilty in any way, you need actual evidence for that, not just feelings. No-one here is taking his statements as gospel truth. We are believing him so far as the other evidence supports him, and disregarding the rest.
Exactly. “Being followed by someone” is in no way the equivalent of “being bashed into the concrete by someone”.
One of those things is reasonable fear of harm, the other isn’t.
It’s amazing how the pro-Martin people are the real vigilantes. They seem to desire a country where people can viciously attack you for nothing more than following you or talking to you.
Because really, isn’t Zimmerman the real victim here? After all, he was doing nothing more than following somebody at night without any explanation. So clearly, when the person he was following turns up dead, we should accept his version of events. After all, he’s the only witness still standing. Who are we to doubt him.
Except, he’s not the only witness, and the other witnesses support his story. But you are certainly correct that he’s the real victim here, both of Martin’s attack and the legal system that failed him.
It’s funny really. Zimmerman is perfectly ok to start following Martin for suspiciously walking “casually in the rain”. But it’s not ok to fear imminent attack when a man you’ve never met starts following you in the dark.
I’ll just come out and explain my position here. If I’m on my way home, and I notice you, a stranger, following me, then I may fear for my safety. I certainly won’t just go straight home, because I have people who I value there. I may well double back and try to work out what’s going on. Hell, I might even walk up to you and ask what you’re doing, and tell you to go away if you know what’s good for you.
Does that seem reasonable so far?
Except many other witnesses do not support his story, as you know. Shall I list them here or will you just accept it was a really quite silly claim?