# State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman Trial Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 20, 2013, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501 "2013-06-20T20:32:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 111
**Author:** ![split\_p\_j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19b73/32.png) [@split\_p\_j](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/split_p_j)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2201 "2013-07-15T15:34:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So in New York, if someone follows you, tells you he has a gun is going to blow your head off, and and then reaches into his pocket, causing you to fear possible serious injury, in your view he could be convicted of menacing in New York? Yes ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2202 "2013-07-15T15:44:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So in New York, if someone follows you, tells you he has a gun is going to blow your head off, and and then reaches into his pocket, causing you to fear possible serious injury, in your view he could be convicted of menacing in New York? > [@split\_p\_j](#): > > Yes Then let me introduce you to one Mark M. Stephens, who in 1979 was charged with violation the exact statute you mention in the District Court of Suffolk County, New York. Mr. Stephens, it was alleged, threatened the complainant by stating he had a gun and was going to blow his head off and then reached into his pocket causing complainant to fear possible serious injury. He objected to the charge, saying that the acts allegedly committed by him simply did not constitute the crime of menacing. The court’s analysis: > [@](#): > > There do not appear to be any cases which clearly suggest whether the acts alleged here may constitute the crime of menacing. “Menace” is defined, in part, in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1964) as “a show of intention to inflict harm: a threatening gesture, statement, or act”. The Penal Law provision specifically limits the relevant element of the offense to physical menace. Thus, the court concludes that in order to be convicted of the crime of menacing the defendant must have committed a physical act which in and of itself placed another person in fear of imminent serious injury. Statements should not be considered since they are not within the contemplation of the statute. > > In the present case the only physical act attributed to the defendant is that he “reached into his pocket”. It is clear that this alone does not constitute a physical menace. > > Therefore, this information must be dismissed. The case is _People v. Stephens_, 100 Misc. 2d 267 (NY Dist. Court, Suffolk County 1979) Can you explain this ruling? ---
**Author:** ![split\_p\_j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19b73/32.png) [@split\_p\_j](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/split_p_j)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2203 "2013-07-15T15:51:00Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Eh? Martin feared that Zimmerman had used Olympic-sprinter level speed to get in front of him, so he went back to the place that he knew Zimmerman had just been? Or, really, **was**. Remember, Zimmerman was a) talking on the phone in a normal, conversation tone, b) banging a metal flashlight, and then c) switching on his little backup flashlight. The idea that Martin wouldn’t have known were Zimmerman was as Martin approached the T is thus spurious. > > What does that mean? I thought we were discussing what most likely happened that night, based on the evidence we have. Martin is accountable for his actions, just as Zimmerman was, if that’s what you mean. > > Eh? We haven’t debated the meanings of any words. > > Again, that law requires physical menace. Following someone isn’t physical menace. > > What question was that? You don’t think Martin on foot was physically menaced by Zimmerman in the car? I’m just debating back of the townhouse. It may not mean what you think it means. Most people seem to take it as Martin being right at the back door of his fathers house. Even assuming your point of view is what happened, Zimmerman banging and turning on his metal flash light would be even more proof to Martin that this guy is following him, for no reason and no authority, and won’t give up. You never heard some one banging a piece of metal in a threating way? For all Martin knew, it could have been a pipe, and for sure Martin did not know who Zimmerman was calling. They are not separate situations as you are trying to make them out to be. The whole thing is one big altercation, started by Zimmerman. I got a little carried away with my Florida comment. I does not belong in this thread, and I can’t defend it. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2204 "2013-07-15T16:03:03Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > You don’t think Martin on foot was physically menaced by Zimmerman in the car? No. Physical menace means a threatm with a physical component which is in itself threatening. Unless Zimmerman threatened to run Martin over with his car and then bumped him with it or something like that, no, it’s not physical menace. > [@split p&j](#): > > I’m just debating back of the townhouse. It may not mean what you think it means. Most people seem to take it as Martin being right at the back door of his fathers house. That’s what it normally means, but as I already covered, even if Martin didn’t mean that, he still had to have doubled back and come to Zimmerman for there to be a confrontation. After he ran, Martin faced no threat from Zimmerman unless Martin chose to put himself back in Zimmerman’s presence. That’s not self defense. > [@split p&j](#): > > Even assuming your point of view is what happened, Zimmerman banging and turning on his metal flash light would be even more proof to Martin that this guy is following him, for no reason and no authority, and won’t give up. You never heard some one banging a piece of metal in a threating way? For all Martin knew, it could have been a pipe, and for sure Martin did not know who Zimmerman was calling. It’s about a four inch tactical flashlight, I highly doubt it sounded like a pipe. Regardless, you still don’t seem to grasp the very simple rules of self defense: you can only use force to prevent the imminent use of unlawful force against you. “That guy who was following me might continue to do so and then might harm me” isn’t it. > [@split p&j](#): > > They are not separate situations as you are trying to make them out to be. The whole thing is one big altercation, started by Zimmerman. Which doesn’t change the laws involved, which govern when force can be used, and are very specific; there’s no “one big altercation” or “underlying incident” clause. Say I yell at someone in a movie theater to shut up, and they come over and beat me. It’s an altercation I started. Should the person thus be justified in hitting me? Or, from the other side: Say I’d tired of you not mowing your lawn, so I go over to your yard and savagely punch you in the face and head a few times, then go back to my house. You go in your house, grab your gun, knock on my door, and shoot me. Obviously, it was an altercation I started. Should the law look at your shooting me as a separate incident from my punching you, for purposes of determining if it was justified? ---
**Author:** ![split\_p\_j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19b73/32.png) [@split\_p\_j](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/split_p_j)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2205 "2013-07-15T16:12:46Z")
No, read my link. 3rd degree menacing does not require a physical component in NY. I mean there are separate laws if a weapon is used. I’ll link to them. ---
**Author:** ![split\_p\_j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19b73/32.png) [@split\_p\_j](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/split_p_j)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2206 "2013-07-15T16:14:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Then let me introduce you to one Mark M. Stephens, who in 1979 was charged with violation the exact statute you mention in the District Court of Suffolk County, New York. > > Mr. Stephens, it was alleged, threatened the complainant by stating he had a gun and was going to blow his head off and then reached into his pocket causing complainant to fear possible serious injury. He objected to the charge, saying that the acts allegedly committed by him simply did not constitute the crime of menacing. > > The court’s analysis: > > The case is _People v. Stephens_, 100 Misc. 2d 267 (NY Dist. Court, Suffolk County 1979) > > Can you explain this ruling? Really, 1979? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2207 "2013-07-15T16:19:44Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > Really, 1979? Caselaw doesn’t have an expiry date… ---
**Author:** ![split\_p\_j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19b73/32.png) [@split\_p\_j](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/split_p_j)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2208 "2013-07-15T16:24:24Z")
[Menacing, second degree.](http://www.weblaws.org/new_york/laws/n.y._penal_law_sec._120.14). Notice the wording of the two laws, and notice one is a Class A misdemeanor and one is a Class B. Human Action, you are describing menacing in the second degree. ---
**Author:** ![split\_p\_j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19b73/32.png) [@split\_p\_j](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/split_p_j)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2209 "2013-07-15T16:34:40Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Caselaw doesn’t have an expiry date… Ok, I can’t explain what that court was thinking back in 1979, and I’m not a lawyer. All I know for sure is that 1979 was a different time, but even then at least there was some charge for a hope of some kind of conviction. I’m saying right now, Zimmerman should have at least been convicted on 3rd degree menacing, instead of walking away free. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2210 "2013-07-15T16:40:58Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > The vast weight of your inferences, sure. But your inferences aren’t reasonable ones. As for the weight of evidence…what evidence? All you gave above was speculation and inference. Evidence in the NEN call would be something like “I’ll catch this guy”, or “Good thing I brought my gun”, or “Have them call me, I don’t know where I’ll be when I find this guy”. None of those statements exist. I guess our next debate must be about the meaning of the word “inference”. If Zimmerman had said “have them call me I don’t know where I’ll be when I find this guy” Inference would not be at issue because inference would not be necessary. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong or out of line about making inferences to come to a conclusion. Read the cases that I quoted to Bricker. What I outlined for you was not starting from guilty and working backwards. It was looking at all of the evidence taken together to see what made the most sense. I looked at evidence, and I made inferences. The inferences that to me were the most logical. Remember, please, I did not and do not have any underlying belief or attitude about Zimmerman that makes me conclude he’s guilty for any other reason than the evidence I’ve seen. I do not think he is a racist, and I do not assume anything simply because he owns a gun and carries it. It is purely the facts of the case, and the reasonable inferences that flow therefrom that convinced me beyond any doubt that Zimmerman is criminally responsible for Martin’s death. So while others may certainly come to different conclusions than I have, please at least respect the fact that that this _ **is** _ how I arrived at my conclusions, I did not _start_ with any beliefs at all. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2211 "2013-07-15T16:42:59Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > Really, 1979? The law you’re offering up was passed before 1979. So which is it? (A) Really, a menacing law passed before 1979? or (B) Yes, both the law and the case interpreting the law are valid. or (C) For reasons I shall explain, the law (passed before 1979) is valid, but the 1979 court decision is ancient and not relevant. Show your work. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2212 "2013-07-15T16:44:09Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > And there’s absolutely nothing wrong or out of line about making inferences to come to a conclusion. True. But there is something wrong with stacking one inference on top of another inference. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2213 "2013-07-15T16:46:46Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > Ok, I can’t explain what that court was thinking back in 1979, and I’m not a lawyer. > > All I know for sure is that 1979 was a different time, but even then at least there was some charge for a hope of some kind of conviction. > > I’m saying right now, Zimmerman should have at least been convicted on 3rd degree menacing, instead of walking away free. No, there was no charge, and no hope of conviction. The court dismissed that charge without even a trial. The court’s decision was that that behavior, as a matter of law, was not “menacing” within the meaning of Penal Law 120.15. The court is saying that even if the state proved he did each and every act alleged in the information, that’s not “menacing,” as the law defines it. I’m telling you that even in New York, simply following someone cannot be criminal menacing. More than telling you: I’m proving it to you, with citation to New York law. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2214 "2013-07-15T16:52:07Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > No, read my link. 3rd degree menacing does not require a physical component in NY. I mean there are separate laws if a weapon is used. I’ll link to them. [It’s right there in the statute.](http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0120.15_120.15.html) > [@](#): > > § 120.15 Menacing in the third degree. > A person is guilty of menacing in the third degree when, by **physical > menace**, he or she intentionally places or attempts to place another > person in fear of death, imminent serious physical injury or physical > injury. > Menacing in the third degree is a class B misdemeanor. Bolding mine. I never said the physical component had to be a deadly weapon, because it doesn’t. One case had the accused throwing pieces of ice, for instance. But there must be a physical, threatening component, and following is not that. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2215 "2013-07-15T16:56:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If the defendant wins at the pre-trial hearing, he is immune from having to proceed to trial. In other words, a person accused of a crime for which self-defense or SYG is his defense may demand a pre-trial hearing, and, at that trial, prove by preponderance of the evidence that his use of force was justified. If successful, he is immune from criminal process and civil process for the acts in question. The state couldn’t prove he didn’t defend himself and he can’t prove it either except by inference. It would have to go back to his earlier injuries and the state introduced some doubt as to the severity. It was done by looking at a picture-after-the-fact so the defense has that to work with. And I believe in a civil case there is more latitude on what kind of evidence can be introduced so Martin’s cell phone texts and videos may come into play as well as Zimmerman’s previous divorce. Not sure what can be introduced in a pretrial of SYG. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2216 "2013-07-15T17:06:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > True. > > But there is something wrong with stacking one inference on top of another inference. Depending. Did you read the cases? Pretty much comes down to each inference and the facts used to support it. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2217 "2013-07-15T17:11:14Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > I guess our next debate must be about the meaning of the word “inference”. No, we both understand it perfectly well, though we do differ on using one’s own inference as evidence on which another inference may be based. > [@Stoid](#): > > If Zimmerman had said “have them call me I don’t know where I’ll be when I find this guy” Inference would not be at issue because inference would not be necessary. Right, exactly. You wrote: > [@Stoid](#): > > So, while your perspective and point of view might be different than mine, if you understand what mine is and you look at all of the things that I look at, understanding how they appear to me, you should understand that **the vast weight of evidence and reasonable inferences** point directly at Zimmerman intending to search for Martin, and that the likelihood of any other thing being the true explanation is so minimal that it raises no doubt whatsoever. Bolding mine. I replied: > [@Human Action](#): > > The vast weight of your inferences, sure. But your inferences aren’t reasonable ones. As for the weight of evidence…what evidence? All you gave above was speculation and inference. Evidence in the NEN call would be something like “I’ll catch this guy”, or “Good thing I brought my gun”, or “Have them call me, I don’t know where I’ll be when I find this guy”. None of those statements exist. I agreed that the vast weight of your inferences pointed that way, while noting that I found your inferences to be unreasonable. The rest of the paragraph directed at your use of “the vast weight of evidence”. As you seem to understand, the evidence is fairly inconclusive, meaning that the evidence does not, on its own, point to Zimmerman continuing to pursue Martin. That would be true if there was a statement like “have them call me I don’t know where I’ll be when I find this guy” on the recording. Since there isn’t, it’s wrong to suggest that the vast weight of the evidence points to your conclusion: only inferences do, and your inferences at that. > [@Stoid](#): > > And there’s absolutely nothing wrong or out of line about making inferences to come to a conclusion. Read the cases that I quoted to Bricker. This is not disputed. > [@Stoid](#): > > What I outlined for you was not starting from guilty and working backwards. It was looking at all of the evidence taken together to see what made the most sense. I looked at evidence, and I made inferences. The inferences that to me were the most logical. That’s certainly possible. > [@Stoid](#): > > Remember, please, I did not and do not have any underlying belief or attitude about Zimmerman that makes me conclude he’s guilty for any other reason than the evidence I’ve seen. I do not think he is a racist, and I do not assume anything simply because he owns a gun and carries it. It is purely the facts of the case, and the reasonable inferences that flow therefrom that convinced me beyond any doubt that Zimmerman is criminally responsible for Martin’s death. So while others may certainly come to different conclusions than I have, please at least respect the fact that that this _ **is** _ how I arrived at my conclusions, I did not _start_ with any beliefs at all. I don’t claim to know your thought processes, but I will suggest that you base belief in his guilt primarily on his statements not being what you consider Truth, as there are a few flaws, minor inconsistencies, and exaggerations present. I think that you view this case as being fairly binary: either Zimmerman’s story is 100% accurate, or he’s guilty, because you haven’t sufficiently allowed for the uncertainly of his memory, or the chance that he could even be deliberately lying but innocent (for example, purposefully inflating the number of blows he suffered to buttress his story, even though he doesn’t need to have suffered any number of blows before defending himself). But, again, no one knows your mind perfectly, not even you. ---
**Author:** ![split\_p\_j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19b73/32.png) [@split\_p\_j](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/split_p_j)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2218 "2013-07-15T17:11:31Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > [It’s right there in the statute.](http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0120.15_120.15.html) > > Bolding mine. > > I never said the physical component had to be a deadly weapon, because it doesn’t. One case had the accused throwing pieces of ice, for instance. But there must be a physical, threatening component, and following is not that. Ok, I think I see what you are saying, but I just don’t understand how you think that everything Zimmerman didn’t meet the letter of this law, menacing in the 3rd. I mean, you can say Martin wasn’t in fear, but we don’t know that. You and other’s say he went back to T looking for a fight, be we don’t know that, and even if he did, it could have been all a part of the response that Zimmerman provoked. We do know that Zimmerman intentionally placed or attempted to place another person in fear of death, imminent serious physical injury or physical injury. From that alone, I’m sure he would have been convicted of 3rd degree menacing, and since that is a crime, he’d also be guilty of some kind of murder charge. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2219 "2013-07-15T17:21:22Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > Ok, I think I see what you are saying, but I just don’t understand how you think that everything Zimmerman didn’t meet the letter of this law, menacing in the 3rd. I mean, you can say Martin wasn’t in fear, but we don’t know that. You and other’s say he went back to T looking for a fight, be we don’t know that, and even if he did, it could have been all a part of the response that Zimmerman provoked. To convict someone of a criminal charge, you have to prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. > [@](#): > > From that alone, I’m sure he would have been convicted of 3rd degree menacing, and since that is a crime, he’d also be guilty of some kind of murder charge. No. Because as I explained, with citation to case law, following someone, telling them you’re going to blow their head off, and placing your hand inside your pocket is not 3rd degree menacing. And if that conduct is not, how could Zimmerman’s be. Please address the caselaw in your answer, rather than simply asserting your own personal certainty. ---
**Author:** ![Sateryn76](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e4f/32.png) [@Sateryn76](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sateryn76)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2220 "2013-07-15T17:26:30Z")
Wow guys. Seriously? [This is for you (SFW)](http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QRJ38y4Jn6k&feature=related) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501.md?page=110) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501.md?page=112)