George Zimmerman posts here? I didn’t know the fucker could even read, but good to know. What’s his user handle?
Shodan
Have I said that ?
By the time Zimmerman drew his gun and murdered Martin, he was probably acting within his legal rights.
He should have been charged with “depraved heart homicide” (or whatever the legal rendition of this charge is in Florida). Carrying a gun and stalking, with evil intention, an innocent man is … inappropriate, whatever the lawyers may say.
That’s fine.
You are assuming Martin attacked Zimmerman because of a question?
Isn’t in more likely Martin attacked him because Zimmerman had been stalking Martin for some time before the encounter? Why was Zimmerman pursuing him? To arrest him? At least it was to harm him in some way. Zimmerman could have asked the question from many yards away when he first saw him from his vehicle.
Compare what the two were doing before Martin beat him up. Martin was being pursued by someone with intent to harm him. Zimmerman was pursuing Martin with intent to harm him in some way.
Unfortunately Zimmerman was wrong. He erred in his judgement of Martin. If Zimmerman has been pursuing someone who was committing break-ins, he would have been stalking him legitimately. He wasn’t stalking Martin legitimately.
The fact that humans can be wrong is why police are trained to not approach the situation the way Zimmerman did. Zimmerman must be held accountable for his error that resulted in Martin’s death.
It is both legal and legitimate to defend yourself from someone wishing to do you harm. This we can agree with. Zimmerman meant to either arrest or kill Martin when he pursued him. Therefore he had intent to harm Martin. Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman. If someone is stalking you with intent to harm you, when do you believe it is justified to defend yourself? When they pull out the gun?
Arresting someone is not legal. Zimmerman was intending to arrest Martin. Martin defended himself from unlawful arrest. A killing that occurs during the commission of a felony (unlawful arrest here) is a felony murder.
Who are you, and what you have you done to WillFarnaby?
I don’t see what difference that makes. Zimmerman was following Martin, lost sight of him, Martin was right by his father’s house, then Martin doubled back and confronted Zimmerman and attacked him when Zimmerman asked Martin what he was doing. (According to the evidence of where the fight took place, where Martin’s father’s house was, and Dee Dee’s testimony of what Martin said.) The question was the triggering event, but it’s really beside the point - it is illegal to attack someone on the street even if they were following you.
There’s no evidence of this, and some evidence that it is not the case. If Zimmerman wanted to harm Martin, why did Zimmerman not have his gun in his hand when he confronted Martin? If Zimmerman wanted to arrest Martin, why did he call the cops and arrange to meet with him? That’s what was happening when Martin confronted and attacked Zimmerman - Zimmerman was looking for a house number or street sign to give his exact location to the police so they could meet up.
Again, there is no evidence of this. If Zimmerman wanted to harm Martin, why did Zimmerman immediately call the police?
If by “stalking illegitimately” you mean that Zimmerman was doing something illegal, that is not correct.
Zimmerman isn’t a police officer.
Zimmerman spotted what he thought was someone acting suspiciously. He then called the police, or more accurately, the police non-emergency number, and gave a description. The police NEN operator tells Zimmerman not to follow Martin. Zimmerman loses sight of Martin, then eventually gets out of his truck to look for a street name or house number, and then Martin confronts and attacks him on his way back to his truck.
Again, there is no evidence that this is so, and some evidence that it is not.
You are justified in defending yourself when you are attacked. Zimmerman did not attack Martin, and there is no evidence that Zimmerman intended to attack Martin.
You are assuming facts not in evidence.
Regards,
Shodan
I agree it is illegal to attack someone for following you. It is not illegal to defend yourself from unlawful arrest. We agree it is illegal to protect yourself. It is relevant because you said Martin attacked Zimmerman because he was being questioned. If Martin attacked Zimmerman because he believed himself to be in danger (which he was because Zimmerman had the intent to unlawfully arrest him), his attack is justified. We know from Martin’s phone call that he believed/knew Zimmerman was intending to harm him in some way.
If Martin did not believe Zimmerman was going to harm him and he attacked him for asking a question, that would be an assault by Martin. This is why I believe Martin’s reason for attacking Zimmerman is relevant.
Zimmerman had his gun and was pursuing who he thought was a burglar. He doesn’t need to have it out to intend to harm Martin. If Zimmerman had his gun out, would you believe Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman?
In any case the harm we know Zimmerman intended was the arrest of Martin. We know this because if he simply was looking for an address to meet with police, he could have stayed at the mailboxes. His intent was not to meet with police, it was to apprehend Martin himself.
Zimmerman called the police so that they could arrest Martin. Once he had lost sight of Martin, he didn’t think the police would be able to find him, so he set out to get Martin himself.
Is it illegal to unlawfully arrest someone? If it is, it is also illegal to stalk them with intent to arrest them. It’s illegal to shoot someone. It is also illegal to raise a loaded gun and aim it at someone. The illegal act doesn’t begin with the pull of the trigger and anyone would be a fool to allow someone to get that far in the act before defending himself.
He isn’t but he should be held to the same standard. We can’t have vigilantes running around without consequences. We can have vigilantes running around with consequences.
You don’t get out of a truck to look for an address. You can see street names and numbers from a vehicle, they are designed for that purpose. He got out of the truck for another reason. If it wasn’t to get an address and it wasn’t to apprehend Martin, what was it?
Are you justified in defending yourself from unlawful arrest? If so at what point in the following scenario are you justified in doing so?
1)A man gets out of his car.
2)He pursues you for 15 minutes straight.
3)He confronts you with a holstered weapon and questions you.
4)He unholsters the weapon.
5)He aims it at you and tells you to lie on the ground.
Please keep in mind that if you wait for number 4 to occur, there’s a good chance you die.
I agree.
I agree.
I assume you meant “legal” rather than “illegal”. If so, I agree.
That was the last thing that happened before Zimmerman attacked, if that is what you mean.
We don’t know that Zimmerman had that intent. And again, if Zimmerman’s intention was to arrest, why did he call the police? Wouldn’t that mean Zimmerman was taking the rather large risk that the police would show up and see him illegally arresting Martin?
No, we don’t know that. There is nothing in Dee Dee’s testimony that establishes this.
And, if Martin was afraid of Zimmerman, why would he double back, after he and Zimmerman lost sight of each other, and seek Zimmerman out to confront him?
I also agree with this.
Martin attacked Zimmerman - that is, he initiated violence - because Zimmerman had been following him, and also because Zimmerman asked him (according to Dee Dee) what he was doing. Following someone, and asking what they are doing, is neither harm nor the threat of harm. And to repeat, if Martin was afraid of Zimmerman harming him, why did he double back from his father’s house and confront Zimmerman?
Yes, it would be justified. It would be stupid, because punching people with guns in their hand is a bad idea, but legally it would be justified.
But the evidence indicates that Martin did not know that Zimmerman had a gun, because he doubled back and confronted and attacked him. Therefore, it is unlikely that Martin feared harm from Zimmerman, since he could have walked into his own living room. He didn’t - he went back and sought Zimmerman out.
No, we don’t know that, because there is no evidence that it is so, and some evidence that it isn’t so.
Again, there is no evidence that this is so.
Zimmerman spotted Martin acting (in his opinion) suspiciously. Zimmerman then calls the NEN operator and follows Martin. The NEN operator advises Zimmerman that they don’t need him to follow Martin. Zimmerman and Martin lose sight of each other, Martin makes it back to his father’s house, Zimmerman then tries to find a house number or street name to arrange an exact location to meet up with the police. (You can’t see house numbers from the back, which is why Zimmerman went between the houses to look for them), and then was confronted and attacked by Martin when Zimmerman was coming back to where he arranged to meet the police. Martin comes back from his father’s house, finds Zimmerman, they exchange words, and Martin attacks.
Yes, by definition whatever is unlawful is illegal.
As mentioned, there is no evidence of Zimmerman’s intent to arrest Martin. That’s something you are assuming, and there is evidence to suggest that the assumption is incorrect.
It was to get an address. You can’t see the street names from the back. The back is where Martin confronted Zimmerman and attacked him.
Somewhere between 3 and 4. But you have left out a couple of intervening steps, which are
2a) You are a few steps from a place of perfect safety
2b) You do not have any reason to believe he has a gun
And
3a) It is illegal to attack people for asking you questions whether you know they have a gun or not
3b) If, because he followed you and then asked you what you were doing, you knock him down, break his nose, blacken his eyes, and sit on his chest smashing his head against the ground, it is likely to lead eventually to step 4, and he is legally justified (all other things being equal) in doing so.
Regards,
Shodan
He called the police to come get Martin. Then he pursued Martin so he wouldn’t get away.
For all I know Zimmerman thought he had found a burglar and he would be applauded for nabbing him.
Creepy-ass cracker?
There’s no evidence that Martin sought to confront and beat up Zimmerman. If his doubling back is evidence he was looking for Zimmerman, than why isn’t Zimmerman’s pursuit evidence he was looking to nab Martin?
I don’t know why he doubled back. He may have wished to carry on his conversation with Dee Dee in private instead of in the home.
If you are within arms reach of someone with a gun out, depending on the scene it may be more advisable to initiate a close confrontation than to run and be shot point blank in the back. But ok.
He may have noticed the gun once confronted. There is no way to know what Martin knew immediately before the fight.
He wasn’t in the truck in the back. He was already out of the truck and in pursuit of Martin when he claimed he started to look for an address. By this point he had already left the spot he was to meet police and had walked around back. My question was why did he leave the vehicle. The answer can’t be that he got out to look for an address. The best place to look for an address is from a vehicle not by walking around back.
We know that Zimmerman was interested in law enforcement. He had probably daydreamed of catching a bad guy. This also helps us to know what Zimmerman May have been thinking when he got out and pursued Martin because his own reasoning makes no sense.
Martin attacked Zimmerman between steps 3 and 4. Zimmerman escalated the situation to step 3 at minimum according to his own testimony. Martin may have escalated it to step 3b and 4. At the very least Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter because he behaved in such a reckless way as to endanger life. We can’t have people in society bumbling around escalating conflicts with loaded guns at the ready.
If people want to pursue bad guys, they should learn how to do it. Just like someone who wants to start parasailing. If some newbie kills someone while parasailing, they should be held responsible.
Zimmerman made no statement stating or implying that the police should arrest Martin. And, according to Zimmerman’s and Dee Dee’s testimony, Martin did get away. Then Zimmerman called the police to arrange a meeting in an exact location.
“For all I know” is not evidence of Zimmerman’s state of mind.
Calling somebody a racial epithet is not evidence that you are afraid they are going to illegally arrest you.
Because there’s no evidence of a desire on Zimmerman’s part to “nab” anybody. The location of the fight and the house numbers is evidence that Zimmerman was looking for house numbers. The location of Martin’s father’s house, the location of the fight, and Dee Dee’s testimony, are evidence that Martin was close to his father’s house, and doubled back. The injuries to Zimmerman are evidence that Martin attacked him. The attack is the illegal part.
Then obviously Martin didn’t feel threatened by Zimmerman. And, of course, “I don’t know” is not evidence.
Sure there is. Martin doubled back and confronted and attacked Zimmerman. This is evidence that he did not know that Zimmerman had a gun, and also evidence that Martin was not feeling threatened by Zimmerman.
He was no longer in pursuit of Martin - he and Martin had lost sight of each other. He was looking for an address in order to give his exact location to the police.
The house numbers are not visible from the back. That’s why Zimmerman walked around to the front.
Zimmerman did not endanger anyone’s life before he was attacked by Martin. And he did not have a loaded gun at the ready - the fight lasted long enough to break Zimmerman’s nose, blacken his eyes, and get his head smashed into the ground before Zimmerman fired.
Acting in self-defense is not manslaughter. Attacking someone because they ask you what you are doing in their neighborhood is assault and battery, and having your head smashed into the ground tends to put a reasonable person in fear of his life, or serious injury. Therefore, as far as the evidence can determine, Zimmerman acted in self-defense.
Regards,
Shodan
WillFarnaby, there is no point in debating this with Shodan. I’m telling you this now. There is no defense for Zimmerman that doesn’t necessitate being unfairly biased against the kid he killed. You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.
This is a question that anyone remotely familiar with this case should agree is a good one. If a big strange guy was chasing after a skinny teenaged girl, no one would be questioning her conduct. We’d all get that she was afraid, and thus, take it as a given that all of her actions should be judged through the lens of a panicked person.
But Martin is not afforded that consideration because it’s treated as a given that he was the bad guy in this scenario. Not the big strange guy with the arrest record, whose main accomplishments in life include stalking and felony assault charges.
You should listen to ywtf. She speaks from experience. Except what she found out is “there is no point in debating this unless you don’t mind looking stupid”. She doesn’t; you might.
So the jury was unfairly biased against Martin?
Apparently you still don’t mind.
Regards,
Shodan
:rolleyes:
This is your definition of “life-threatening”? Do you think it is roughly equivalent to knocking someone down and smashing their head into the ground?
Regards,
Shodan
Zimmerman’s actions pre-fight don’t need to be defended. They were biased, racist, dumb, etc. etc, but completely within the law, unless disobeying a directive from a 911 operator is a crime.
Being an asshole isn’t a crime. Following someone who you claim you think is committing crime isn’t a crime. Jumping that person and beating them and bashing there head on the ground IS a crime. The only crime committed that day was by Martin, and sadly, his life was lost a result. The impetuousness of youth, if you will.
Surely you recently read about Apartment Alice or Condo Cathy who approached a black gentleman who lived in her building, demanding proof he belonged there? Surely he was upset at this, but instead of beating her, as a rational adult, he documented her behavior via camera phone. If she had had a holstered gun on her hip, it would be almost the exact same scenario. Yet surely all would agree if he had responded by bashing her head in the ground, he would be in the wrong, yes? And if she had then responded by shooting him, it would be justifiable?
We don’t know this. Martin wasn’t prosecuted and didn’t have a chance to defend his conduct in court (or in any other fashion). We don’t even know that Zimmerman didn’t commit a crime – just that the jury didn’t find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sad to me that so many are so quick and willing to assert that a dead child is guilty of criminal behavior, when he’s had no chance at all to defend himself.
Gf of Martin claims on the phone he said ‘get off get off’, meaning Zimmerman on top of Martin, beating him, yet not a single mark on Martin to substantiate this. Gf claims after this, phone went dead while she thought a man was attacking Martin, but does not call police, “assumed he would be ok”?
Martin justifiably pissed, sizes up Zimmerman, thinks he can take him in a fight, doesn’t know Zimmerman is armed, doesn’t know Florida law, and sadly dies as a result.
If the KKK grand wizard is minding his own business, pumping gas, when someone recognizes him and assaults him for no other reason than who he is, that is a crime. You can be liberal and rational at the same time to get that.
I’m always a little surprised by the true believers on both sides of this particular tragedy. Believing any particular version of how the fight went down means disbelieving some sworn testimony at the trial. Obviously, someone is lying or mistaken. But in those circumstances, a reasonable person reserves more than a smidgen of doubt and humility about which witnesses, exactly, testified correctly. Fundamentally, there just wasn’t much reliable evidence about who started what or who was defending themselves. Everybody is forced to rely on bankshot theories based on who screamed what and what an average human would do in different situations.
So when I see people come in with metaphysical certainty about one version of the story or another, I just kinda shake my head. You can call yourself a neutral judge of the evidence, but when you display that level of certainty about inherently uncertain facts, that’s a tell. It’s a tell that your view of the facts is being determined by your views, and not the other way round.
Maybe this is what happened, or maybe not. We just don’t know. All we know with any certainty is that the jury didn’t find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty.