What are you proposing?
Seriously: explain the system you want to see put in place that would have let us convict Zimmerman for waving his gun, despite the fact that no one saw him do it and no one said he did it.
You’re obviously upset about the current approach that requires some evidence. Tell me how we do it in your ideal world.
The problem is that Zimmerman erased the page by killing Trayvon.
There’s nothing anyone can do about it but seethe in impotent rage. So, that’s what some folks are doing.
OK. But that seething in impotent rage reads, to the casual observer, like a half-formed argument for something more. It doesn’t really acknowledge its own impotence, in other words: it hints at a devastating rejoinder, a expose that reveals some basic flaw in the current system for which the writer has an obvious solution in hand.
But of course, it stops short of revealing that solution.
And this was a common theme before and during the trial. I can’t even recall how many times I asked you with the face, to pick one memorable example, to actually lay out the elements of second-degree murder, and show for each element what evidence could lead a neutral observer to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that it was true, and that no other reasonable scenarios were possible.
She never did. Instead, she kept repeating that an unarmed kid was dead and a man shot him, as though that, alone, described the crime of second-degree murder.
It doesn’t. It never has.
If Zimmerman had drawn his gun before the fight started, why did he wait until after Martin had broken his nose, blackened his eyes, knocked him down, jumped on his chest, and whammed his head against the pavement? What was he waiting for?
Seriously. There was a non-negligible amount of time between the start of the fight, and the point at which Zimmerman shot. He fired once only, and he (or Martin, if you have a vivid enough imagination) screamed for help loudly and repeatedly.
It’s a serious question, and I have never seen it answered.
If Zimmerman had the gun out and in his hand, why did he wait until after Martin beat him up to shoot?
Regards,
Shodan
Bricker, my only point is the how effed the system seems to be.
Absent any witness to a crime, any extenuating circumstance that would put the alleged perpetrator in a worse position can just be waved away with an “I didn’t do it.”
I fully believe that Zimmerman had his gun out before he claimed he did. I also know there is no way to prove it outside of Zimmerman stepping up and admitting it – and why the hell would he do that?
How the hell should I know? I’m not the super-cop that Zimmerman thinks he is.
Which is why all the idiots that helped pass SYG statutes as a means to remove “Duty to Retreat” clauses and/or to extend “Castle Doctrine” beyond the home are the ones that should be feeling the heat for this.
Zimmerman may have acted badly, but it is the poorly crafted legislation from 2005 that resulted in no other verdict being possible.
My belief is that he didn’t intend to shoot immediately, he was trying to hold Martin at gunpoint, then Martin (seeing as how Zimmerman was unknown to him!) tried to take the gun away, which is what was actually going on on the ground and the reason Martin was screaming so hysterically for someone to help him stop this crazy motherfucker from shooting him.
Agreed.
In the specific, I thought 2nd degree murder was an over-reach. But I feel he should have at lease been convicted of manslaughter, by virtue of the fact that the moron did something really stupid, and irreversable. But these SYG and enhanced self-defense laws, or whatever, seem to water that shit right down.
It isn’t negligence if I was just tryng to defend myself (no matter how stupid is of you to put yourself in that position in the first place).
We live in the era of ubiquitous digital recording devices. The Zimmerman-Martin encounter didn’t happen in high desert somewhere. It happened in a densely populated environment, with at least a few dozen people within a few dozen feet of the fight. With most of these people equipped with recording devices, I am sure some of which are equipped with infrared “see in the dark” mode (I have one, for example).
There is no way Zimmerman could have thought that he has the freedom to kill Martin with no witnesses (and, as it turns out, he didn’t). There is no way for Zimmerman to know that no one was recording the whole encounter, from beginning to end. During five hours of interrogation, when the police kept lying to him about there being videos and witnesses that saw the whole thing, there was no way for Zimmerman to know those were lies.
So when he was telling the interrogators what happened, he had to have an inkling that if he lied, there was a very good chance it would be shown a lie. And yet what he told the police “hangs together” very well when compared to what the witnesses reported. Which is exactly what his interrogator said, under oath, when he testified that inconsistencies in Zimmerman’s telling and re-telling and re-telling the story were insignificant.
Since SYG was not invoked in the trial, you’re wrong.
Exactly. And that’s the way the law works.
Now, if the law imposed a duty on Zimmerman to PROVE he was acting in self-defense, you’d still be stuck on the gun-waving issue. But at least Zimmerman would have had to convince the jury that his words about fearing serious injury were true, instead of the state having to convince the jury that they were, beyond a reasonable doubt, false. I think that’s the takeaway here.
I was a fan of the SYG concept. Having seen it play out, I have changed my mind.
The jury instructions included the concept.
The “SYG” concept was not mentioned during the trial by the defense and was irrelevant, both during the trial, and in the jury instructions, considering that there was no avenue of escape for Zimmerman with Martin sitting on top of him.
Terr, you’re ascribing super-human calm and analytical ability to a man who’s skulking around in the dark looking for one of those assholes who always get away.
You think Zimmerman was thinking, “golly, I best mind my P’s & Q’s lest someone with an infrared camera just happens to be filming the darkness of the backyard?”
I subscribe, basically, to what **Stoid **laid out a few posts up. And then I think Zimmerman painted himself in the best light possible after the fact.
If you cannot explain the discrepancy, is that not an indication that the scenario where Zimmerman approaches Martin with gun drawn is probably not correct?
So we do have more than just Zimmerman’s word to go on. And even when we do not take Zimmerman’s word for anything unless it is backed up independently, we find indications that he did not act as his worst detractors claim is likely.
Regards,
Shodan
I maintain that I don’t think SYG was that significant in the verdict. Jack Batty, you never answered Bricker’s question, but would you rather a system in which if there is a shooting with no witnesses the defendant must prove in court that he didn’t do it for an illegal reason? If so, to what burden of proof should the defendant have to prove their claims? Beyond reasonable doubt? Because even in Florida, the jury instructions explain that Zimmerman does have to offer some proof for his claim–to the preponderance of the evidence. This concept that because of the SYG law in Florida Zimmerman had no requirement to prove any part of his self defense claim at all is not correct.
Now, second degree murder was always an impossibility. Second degree murder is more than just proving someone is dead and the defendant killed them, and fulfilling the rest of the criteria of the crime is impossible without more evidence than what we had in this case. So on that charge it was irrelevant as to whether Zimmerman proved his self defense claims to the preponderance of the evidence or not, since the prosecution wholly failed in proving second degree murder.
No extraordinary analytical ability is needed to know that when you’re surrounded by a dozen townhouses, all within 30-50 feet of you, all occupied, someone or a dozen someones may be watching you when you fight someone.
I didn’t answer **Bricker’s **question because I pretty much agreed with his rebuttal … in post 292, that is.
And if he was walking around with his gun drawn, like Starskey and Hutch, while he heroically hunted down the prowler that has been terrorizing all his neighbors, he wouldn’t have been worried about that. But when it turns out it was just a kid with some Skittles he wasted … oops.