Pretty amazing sampling. You’d think CNN would post at least one “Caucasian” response that was an example of the “Trayvon Martin, an innocent unarmed kid, was murdered and the jury was wrong” attitude like the “African-American” responses were. Maybe they couldn’t find one.
:smack::o
:dubious: How is arguing about the perception of threat leading to defending oneself an examination of what an “aggressor” is as a matter separate from the law of justifiable use of deadly force? You were drawing a non-existent distinction. Just cop and move on. Jesus.
Two different issues. Two different criteria. But explaining it to you is useless. You will just ignore the explanation.
The thing you don’t get is that most of us don’t have much respect for the legal system. Another thing you don’t seem to get is that the legal system exists to enforce morality. If the law leads to an immoral outcome, that means the law is bad.
It’s clear even from the beginning that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin. That’s against the consensus morality, but it’s not against the law. The law is out of step with morality.
What you really don’t seem to get is that a lot of people would make racism a crime, and we see it as a failure of the system that it isn’t. I know I’d rather have racists in jail than people who do drugs, for sure.
People wanted Zimmerman convicted so they could trust the justice system to enact justice. That’s its purpose. That it didn’t means they trust it less to do its job, meaning more people, like Zimmerman (and, likely, Martin) are going to take the law into their own hands.
Our best hope of fighting this is getting SYG laws dealt with so they can’t be racially applied. (I wasn’t convinced of that until the 20 year maximum sentence of that lady who shot a gun in the air. Yeah, maybe SYG doesn’t cover her, but it’s a really minor offense–damage of property and discharge of weapon.)
Perhaps because Zimmerman made the trial all about that. Remember, he claimed that he lost sight of Martin and then the teen doubled back and started the fight. If that wasn’t important, why did he claim it and the defense go out of their way to prove it? Remember, as you said, the defense tried to prove Zimmerman innocent, not “not guilty” due to lack of information.
And, dude, you just admitted to fucking racism, so shut up.
What I see is that, once again, the law fails to handle justice. There’s no reason why his contradiction shouldn’t itself be evidence.
Just like what happened before the crime was committed should have had some relevance. That it didn’t is why people are upset.
It’s not really about Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence at this point. The trial is over, and the jury has spoken. Moving forward, I’d like to: 1) understand the laws better so I can give my students informed advice, and 2) establish that Martin had a valid claim to defend himself, and wasn’t simply a thug attacking someone for no reason. I’m sure that would make a difference to anyone who cared about him.
I admit it is very difficult to explain what makes no sense to begin with.
Zimmerman claims he had to use deadly force because he perceived/reasonably believed Martin to be using deadly force. Making Martin the aggressor provoking Zimmerman’s action.
Martin could have been using force because he perceived/reasonably believed Zimmerman to be using or about to use force. Making Zimmerman the aggressor.
There is no distinction.
The cite Bricker offered simply clarifies what qualifies as provocation, which is obvious to the people in these discussions: provoked by behaving in a manner reasonably believed/perceived by the person perceiving it as including force or threat of force. As opposed to simply being rude, or insulting, or obnoxious.
Unsupported inference. Zimmerman’s reasonable fear of death or serious injury doesn’t prove Martin was the aggressor.
Unsupported inference. Martin’s reasonable fear does not prove Zimmerman was the aggressor.
You are assuming perfect knowledge on the part of both parties where it is impossible.
So, the statutes and caselaw that you’ve been shown in this thread that make the distinction do not, in fact, comprise the law in Florida, but your unsupported assertions do? :smack: You really are a fucking moron, and absurdly arrogant with it.
Exactly. It discusses what makes someone the aggressor. Someone may reasonably be in fear of someone who is not, in fact, aggressive, as it can very often be reasonable to make mistakes. The standard is not that the fear is warranted, it’s that it’s reasonable. Again, you are falsely assuming perfect knowledge, and your inferences from that are necessarily false.
Serino is not an unbiased reader of the law, his job is to arrest people and ferret out evidence such that those people get convicted or confess to a crime. Serino was of the opinion that Zimmerman should have been charged with manslaughter from the beginning, Norm Wolfinger (the State’s Attorney with a J.D. and 20+ years prosecuting criminal cases) disagreed and said that there was not evidence to sustain a conviction. So Serino isn’t a good “authority” to appeal to here, as his understanding of the law (as evidenced by the jury outcome, and the response by the only remotely unbiased prosecutor to touch this case) is not correct.
It’s also worth noting, in Zimmerman’s narrative Martin didn’t ask who he was. Instead he aggressively asked “what’s your problem” and after Zimmerman replied he had no problem, he was punched in the face without provocation. This is where I have to do something I don’t want to do, but I think if the ages and the races of Zimmerman and Martin were reversed and everything else was left the same there would be not a single person in this thread arguing that Hispanic Martin had a right to punch black Zimmerman in the face just because black Zimmerman’s first response to his off the cuff question wasn’t an accurate explanation of what he was doing. Zimmerman was surprised by Martin, he wasn’t expecting to be confronting by Martin like that. If Zimmerman wasn’t white and Martin wasn’t a 17 year old black kid, I sincerely doubt more than in one in thousand SDMB posters would argue that it’s okay to start punching someone because they answer a question in a way you don’t like.
[As always, we’re predicating this on the facts of Zimmerman’s story as he told it, not on what actually happened–which is unknowable.]
Everything more or less we’ve talked about has been in some way relevant to the case, but relevant and proof beyond reasonable doubt (as you concede) are different animals.
I personally don’t believe the “get out to check the street sign” story either. That’s one part of the Zimmerman story I do not believe. I think the call tape more accurately shows that Zimmerman most likely jumped out without thinking, to run to the spot where he had last seen Martin to try and see where Martin had gone. A lot of people presume Zimmerman was in a “chase” of Martin, but it’s always been more like a “run to where I last saw him to try and find out where he went” sort of thing. Zimmerman was a short guy who wasn’t in great shape (he wasn’t the fat balloon he turned into during his 1+ year waiting for trial, but he wasn’t a tall skinny athletic teenager like Martin–Zimmerman was never catching Martin on foot.)
I think several of the lies in Zimmerman’s story were his Associate’s Degree in criminal justice and his political science classes combined with the self defense law courses he took kicking in. He was ‘polishing’ his story to shore up the self defense part of his story. I don’t think there is an easy-to-find record of the trial up yet (I watched some of it on TV) but as I recall, Zimmerman’s attorneys basically ignored the “street sign” part of his narrative because I think they also recognized it was bullshit and was best not repeated more than it had to be.
But it’s actually immaterial to the self defense portion of Zimmerman’s story. Because even if, instead of the street sign story you believe what’s more in line with the call tapes–that Zimmerman was running to Martin’s prior location to try and keep eyes on him, that isn’t the same thing as “confronting” Martin. Further, in Zimmerman’s narrative he was returning to his vehicle when Martin attacked him, and based on the call tapes it’s obvious Zimmerman had in fact lost visual of Martin and was no longer running or etc when the call ended. The call ends with Zimmerman saying he’s going to the club house to meet the officers who are en route, which to me makes the claim that he was returning to his car most likely true. Where I also disbelieve Zimmerman’s story is his version of how the physical confrontation begins (also earlier when I used the term ‘battery’, that is because that is when I consider the physical confrontation to have begun, not the more generic “confrontation.” Sorry if I was unclear.) My suspicion is the back and forth went on more than what Zimmerman admitted to, and I suspect Zimmerman said more than just “I don’t have a problem.” But that’s the part of the story that is wholly outside the realm of evidence–meaning there was never any hope the prosecution could prove how the initial confrontation turned into a physical confrontation.
If Zimmerman was lying about this, why does his testimony about the amount that was said before the physical confrontation match Jeantal’s testimony? Or are you entirely dismissing her evidence?
I think issues are getting confused here. Imagine if Zimmerman’s story up to the first punch is 100% true, but instead of Zimmerman killing Martin the police arrive to find Martin beating the shit out of Zimmerman. They detain Martin, Martin asserts a self defense claim based on the fact that Zimmerman had been following him, and when Martin confronted him Zimmerman reached for something in his pocket.
That might prevail to either create an “imperfect defense” (meaning it would lessen the criminal charge he was convicted of or the sentence) or even produce an acquittal. Confronting Zimmerman in itself isn’t illegal, they are both in a place they have a legal right to be asking someone their business is not a crime or an aggressive act (inherently, it could be an aggressive act in the right context, I suppose.)
In Martin’s hypothetical criminal trial, at issue most likely would be is whether or not he needed to continue beating Zimmerman past the point of when he knocked him down. Did Martin feel that was necessary to protect himself, and could he convince a jury. Back in the original Zimmerman thread I mentioned an incident when I was a cadet on Spring leave I was actually staying with a friend I had made at the academy whose family lived in Philadelphia. We were downtown one evening with myself, my friend, and a third friend. A black guy runs up from behind us, and grabs a gold necklace my friend was wearing (incidentally he would not have worn this at the academy so this was one of the rare times he would have it on) and ripped it off his neck. Being young men, we chased after him. I was slow, was never gonna catch this guy. But my friend was a short but compact and strong guy who was a running back on the football team–he was fast. He caught up to the guy first, the other friend caught up to him second, and I caught up to them third. My friend knocked him down and started kicking him, the second guy to arrive helped kick him, and by the time I arrived they had basically been stomping this guy for 20+ seconds.
I remember looking into the law a few days later, and I believe most likely they had committed a serious criminal assault on the thief. Once he was knocked down, it was two fit young guys against one man, and they were continually stomping him beyond what was necessary. But, this was a long time ago, we were three white kids (two cadets at West Point) and the police basically didn’t give a shit. They heard this guy had stolen a necklace, basically tossed him (covered in blood) into the back of the police car and drove off without even doing an interview.
I tell that story just to point out that even if your initial physical force is justified, there is a point where it is no longer justified.
I don’t think Jeantal has a good memory of exactly what happened. I don’t think she lied, but last night I spoke with my elderly mother on the phone. The night before that I spoke with a friend of mine. Put a gun to my head and ask me, to recall with perfect or even relatively accurate memory, the final 45 seconds of those phone calls and I doubt I get it right.
Plus, if she actually heard the start of the confrontation (who knows what she actually heard–because her version does conflict with Zimmerman in terms of wording) it’s possible she would not be able to accurately hear what was going on over a cell phone especially one not on speakerphone mode.
I’m of the opinion she heard the start of the confrontation, as she claims she heard someone saying “get off”. She says she “sort of” heard Martin say it, which suggests to me that she did not know who it actually was.
To the standard of preponderance of evidence, we can say that Martin started the fight, in my opinion, and that’s the standard that will be relevant in a civil case or immunity hearing.
The standard is what a reasonable person would feel. So far as I can tell, the fact that it’s a minor doesn’t change that standard. And an equally – indeed, more – reasonable perception would be reaching for a cell phone.
Are you asking what would happen if several different witnesses had different opinions about whether Zimmerman’s life was in danger at the time of the shooting?
I wonder if eye witnesses are even allowed to offer an opinion like that. The jury is supposed to consider the events (in a scenario where they believe the witness testimony) from the perspective of the defendant and whether he had a reasonable fear for his life or fear of great bodily harm. I’m not entirely sure the opinion of the hypothetical eye witness would be all that relevant, their function would be to relate the facts as they saw them. The jury’s function is to decide if they believe the witness description of the facts and to decide if they think the defendant had a reasonable fear at the time of the shooting.
If you’re talking about Marissa Alexander, you are not accurately summarizing the evidence. Why do you believe it was NOT attempted murder? The bullet hole was at the height of Rico’s head. Three witnesses testified she pointed the gun at Rico, shot, and missed.
Can you explain why, in your view, this is merely “damage of property” and “discharge of weapon” and not attempted murder?
A good defense attorney would, I think, object and the judge would sustain.